SandRidge Energy, Inc

DISCLOSURE APPENDIX CONTAINS IMPORTANT DISCLOSURES, ANALYST CERTIFICATIONS, INFORMATION ON TRADE ALERTS, ANALYST MODEL PORTFOLIOS AND THE STATUS OF NON-U.S ANALYSTS. FOR OTHER IMPORTANT DISCLOSURES, visit www.credit-suisse.com/researchdisclosures or call +1 (877) 291-2683 US Disclosure: Credit Suisse does and seeks to do business with companies covered in its research reports. As a result, investors should be aware that the Firm may have a conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of this report. Investors should consider this report as only a single factor in making their investment decision.

CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES RESEARCH & ANALYTICS BEYOND INFORMATION®

Client-Driven Solutions, Insights, and Access

12 February 2013

Americas/United States

Equity Research

Oil & Gas Exploration & Production

SandRidge Energy, Inc. (SD) INITIATION

Taking a Swing at the 'Miss'; Initiate at Neutral

■ Initiating Coverage: We are initiating coverage of SandRidge with a Neutral rating and target price of $6.30, assuming 6.0 times 2013E EBIDA. SD is essentially a pure play on the Mississippian. We expect shares to be range bound in 2013, given continued outspend and significant levels of unproductive capex, which will likely mask value-creation potential from this intriguing play.

■ Perpetual Motion: Throughout its fledgling existence, SD has been in perpetual motion, shifting from a high-cost gas producer at its 2007 IPO to an oily producer. Following the gas price collapse and consistent outspend of its cash flows, SD’s financial position has been under duress, which led to dubious strategic moves such as the ill-fated purchase of GoM shelf properties through Dynamic Offshore.

■ Mississippian Has Value-Creation Potential: Despite its checkered past, management has made some good moves. SD got an early-mover advantage in the Mississippian, leasing 1.85 MM acres for only $200/acre. This play could drive long-term value creation, given attractive economics (IRR of 25%) and its vast running room. SD has signed two JVs at a valuation of $4,000/acre, which validates the potential of this burgeoning play. Lingering concerns include the lowering and adverse mix of its basin type curve (gas now 63% vs. 55% previously) and ‘statistical’ approach, which is light on modern 3-D seismic data.

■ Not the Right Type of Growth: Pro forma for the Permian sale, we expect 22% ’12-’14 oil production growth, which will still be in the top quartile of its peer group. However, we estimate that SD’s debt-adjusted cash flow growth from 2012 to 2014, which is a much more important value driver, will significantly lag its peers, given its significant outspend relative to forecast cash flows.

■ Significant Claims on Cash: Analysis of SD’s financial position suggests that there is more than $300 MM per annum in ‘unproductive’ capex related to royalty trusts, P&A obligations, and the under-delivery of CO2. While SD shares trade at a meaningful discount to NAV, we believe that this discount is warranted, given the significant claims on its cash flows. We believe that a more ‘live within your means’ approach is necessary before the shares can possibly rerate.

Share price performance

5

6

7

8

9

Feb-12 May-12 Aug-12 Nov-12

Daily Feb 13, 2012 - Feb 11, 2013, 2/13/12 = US$7.79

Price Indexed S&P 500 INDEX

On 02/11/13 the S&P 500 INDEX closed at 1517.01

Quarterly EPS Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2011A -0.02 -0.00 0.01 0.02 2012E 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.06 2013E 0.01 -0.09 -0.07 -0.07

Financial and valuation metrics

Year 12/11A 12/12E 12/13E 12/14E Revenue (US$ m) 1,400.4 1,977.5 1,992.4 2,245.8 EBIDAX (US$ m) 753.7 1,220.9 1,073.4 1,215.6 EPS (CS adj.) (US$) 0.00 0.22 -0.23 -0.20 Prev. EPS (US$) — — — — ROGIC (%) 7.99 8.28 4.12 4.61 P/E (x) 1,685.3 26.0 -25.3 -29.1 P/E rel. (%) 11,069.5 180.9 -191.7 -245.8 OCFPS (US$) 1.08 1.72 1.38 1.62 P/OCF (x) 7.6 3.3 4.2 3.5 Qtrly ent. val./tot. EBIDAX 8.0 5.3 5.5 4.9 Net debt (US$ m) 2,606 3,890 2,301 3,067

Dividend (current, US$) — Dividend yield (%) — Net debt current qtr (US$ m) 3,890.5 Net debt/tot cap (Next Qtr., %) 91.8 BV/share (Next Qtr., US$) 5.5 GIC (12/12E, US$) 8,130.0 EV qtr/GIC (x) 0.75 Current WACC — Free float (%) — Number of shares (m) 583.00

Source: Company data, Credit Suisse estimates.

Rating NEUTRAL* Price (11 Feb 13, US$) 5.73 Target price (US$) 6.30¹ 52-week price range 8.82 - 5.19 Market cap. (US$ m) 3,340.59 Enterprise value (US$ m) 7,231.08

*Stock ratings are relative to the coverage universe in each

analyst's or each team's respective sector.

¹Target price is for 12 months.

[V] = Stock considered volatile (see Disclosure Appendix).

Research Analysts

Arun Jayaram, CFA

212 538 8428

[email protected]

David Yedid

212 325 1831

[email protected]

Helen Xu

212 325 4750

[email protected]

12 February 2013

SandRidge Energy, Inc. (SD) 2

SandRidge (SD) Executive Summary and Investment Thesis

We initiate coverage of SandRidge Energy (SD) with a Neutral rating and a target price of

$6.30, which equates to approximately 70% of NAV and 6.0 times our 2013 EBIDA estimate.

Throughout its fledgling existence, SD has been in perpetual motion, shifting from a high-cost

gas producer at its 2007 IPO to an oily producer. While the company has made some good

strategic moves along the way, including the well timed purchase of Permian Basin properties

in 2009 and the acquisition of a vast acreage position in the Mississippian play at a bargain-

basement price of $200 per acre, the Achilles heel of the story has been excess spending in a

highly cyclical industry.

Given SD’s plans to monetize its Permian Basin properties for $2.6 billion, the key driver of the

company’s stock will be the company’s drilling results in its horizontal Mississippian play (~80%

of 2013 capex). As such, we concentrate our analysis on this play, which represents the lion’s

share of our asset value. (See Exhibit 1.)

What Is the Bottom Line from Our Analysis?

We believe that fair value for SD shares over the next 12 months is $6.30, which suggests a

balanced risk/reward profile in the stock relative to the peer group. We would recommend that

investors exit positions at share prices above $7 per share, with a recommended entry point of

$4-5, given asset valuation support.

Our preferred asset metric for evaluating E&P companies is net asset value (NAV), which

normalizes for variations in reserve life, future capital requirements, and near- and long-term

growth rates versus peers. The components of our $9.00 per share net asset value for SD are

highlighted in Exhibit 1.

Exhibit 1: SD Net Asset Value Components (per Share)

SD Net Asset Value

$7.40

$4.80 $0.60 $3.90

$9.00

$0

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

$14

$13 per share in assets


What Is Our Investment Thesis for SD Shares?

We expect shares to be range bound in 2013, given continued outspend, which will likely mask

value-creation potential from this intriguing play. Analysis of SD’s financial position suggests

that there is more than $300 MM per annum in ‘unproductive’ capex related to royalty trusts,

P&A obligations, and the under-delivery of CO2 volumes to OXY. While SD shares trade at a

meaningful discount to NAV, we believe that this discount is warranted, given the significant

12 February 2013


claims on its cash flows. We believe a more ‘live within your means’ approach is necessary

before the shares can possibly rerate.

Investment Positives

■ Attractive Drilling Economics in the Company’s Mississippian Play: Sweet spots in

the Mississippian provide some of the most attractive economics in U.S. onshore E&P.

On average, the sweet spots of Mississippi lime provide IRR of 51%, compared to an

average of 41% for unconventional onshore oil plays and 16% for gas plays at the

current futures strip. However, we estimate that average after-tax IRRs for SD’s wells in

the Mississippian are approximately 25%, reflecting a higher gas mix and steeper

decline curve.

■ Attractive Entry Price for Its Mississippian Position: In 2009, SD began an

aggressive leasing campaign for the horizontal Mississippian play, citing the potential of

this play given significant vertical production history from over 17,000 wells. The

company was able to build a 1.85 MM net acreage position (2.3 MM acres gross) at a

lease cost of $200 per acre, or $400 MM in total. The lease acquisition cost looks

compelling relative to the implied purchase price in the company’s two joint venture

transactions with Atinum and Repsol.

■ Differentiated Onshore Oil Production Growth, Driven by the Mississippian:

Exhibit 12 illustrates our production growth estimates for SD relative to its peers.

Between 2012 and 2014, we estimate that SD will grow its oil production at a 22%

CAGR, which is attractive relative to the peer group.

■ Management and BoD Is Under Magnifying Glass: One of SD’s largest shareholders

has commenced a consent solicitation to amend the company’s bylaws to destagger the

BoD, provide for the removal of directors ‘with or without cause,’ and remove the

existing BoD with the shareholders’ nominees. While the process is a distraction to their

ongoing management of operations, there are clear benefits from having a motivated

BoD and management team in terms of maximizing shareholder value creation.

■ Benefits of Scale: One of the key challenges of the play is the significant amount of

water that is produced, requiring significant water disposal infrastructure. On average,

SWD wells cost approximately $2 to $3 MM per copy. SD’s peers are developing the

Mississippian under a ratio of six to eight wells per SWD well. However, SD anticipates

developing the play with a ratio of 10 to 12 wells per SWD well, which will translate into

a savings of $130,000 per well, thereby lowering invested capital per well.

■ Discounted Valuation Relative to Net Asset Value: Exhibit 14 illustrates our

comparative valuation table for Credit Suisse’s U.S. E&P coverage. SD shares are

trading at a discounted valuation relative to the peer group on net asset value (NAV).

The shares are valued at a 36% discount to our $9.00 per share NAV, while our E&P

coverage universe trades at a 12% discount to NAV.

■ Permanent Relief in Sight to Reduce Crude Oil Differentials: One of the key

headwinds for producers such as SD that market their crude at Cushing has been the

lack of takeaway capacity, which has pressured differentials. As a result of meaningful

midstream investment, there is 1.2 MMbbls per day of pipeline infrastructure that is set

for completion from the Permian Basin and Cushing to the Gulf Coast, which should

narrow Midland differentials (as well as WTI) over time relative to LLS.

■ Low Expectation Story: Currently, only 29% of E&P analysts have a Buy rating on SD

shares, while 63% have it rated Hold rating and 8% have a Sell rating. It is one of the

lowest expectation stories in the U.S. E&P sector.

Investment Concerns

■ Meaningful Downward Revision to Mississippian Type Curve: SD reported that

historical performance from its 500+ wells drilled thus far in the Mississippian play have

12 February 2013


exhibited a steeper oil decline and revised its average Mississippian well EUR to

155 MBbl of oil and 1.6 Bcf natural gas vs. its previous estimate of 204 MBbl of oil and

1.5 Bcf of natural gas. A steeper-than-expected decline in oil volumes relative to NGLs

and natural gas has also been noted by Range Resources (RRC), which estimates that

oil will comprise ~50% of total initial production rates but expects it to make up ~33% of

the expected EUR.

■ Cash Flow Growth on a Debt-Adjusted Basis Poised Meaningfully to Lag the Peer

Group, Based on Our Estimates: While SD’s oil production growth rate is attractive

relative to its peers, we expect the company to outspend its cash flows for the

foreseeable future. As such, we believe that it is important to translate oil production

growth into cash flow growth to adjust for differences in per barrel margins. In Exhibit 20

and Exhibit 21, we analyze how the increased oil production will translate into cash

flows. Between 2012 and 2014, capex-adjusted cash flow per share growth is in the

bottom quartile at -2%, trailing the peer group average of 17%.

■ SD’s Purchase of GoM Assets, Which Likely Compress Its Relative Multiple,

Given Increased Volatility of Production and Higher Reinvestment Risk: Exhibit 23

illustrates the pro forma historical production from the acquired assets on a gross basis.

Note the historic volatility in the production stream, which will likely lead to greater

swings in SD’s quarterly production over time. We believe that this increased volatility

as well has higher reinvestment risk relative to onshore will likely compress SD’s

relative multiple over time. Exhibit 24 illustrates the GoM comparables. Excluding MMR,

which is trading on anticipation of multi-Tcf discoveries on the ultra-deep shelf, the

GoM-focused E&Ps are trading at 3.2 times 2013E EBITDA. This compares to our

large-cap peer group at 6.2 times and E&P coverage group average of 5.7 times.

■ Significant Drains on Future Cash Flows That Do Not Benefit Existing

Shareholders: Analysis of SD’s financial position suggests that there is more than

$300 MM per annum in ‘unproductive’ capex related to royalty trusts, P&A obligations,

and the under-delivery of CO2. While SD shares trade at a meaningful discount to NAV,

we believe that this discount is warranted, given the significant claims on its cash flows.

We believe that a more ‘live within your means’ approach is necessary before the

shares can possibly rerate.

■ SD’s Business Model Has Meaningfully Outspent Its Cash Flow Every Year Since

Its IPO: Exhibit 25 illustrates SD’s five-year aggregate capex and acquisition program

and sources of funding for its investments in property and drilling. Over this time period,

SD has spent $9.3 billion in capex, including acquisitions. However, operating cash flow

and asset sales have only represented 40% of its spending program, which has

necessitated significant funding from equity (27%), debt instruments (26%), and royalty

trusts (7%). We expect this level of outspending to continue for the foreseeable future.

What Is Proprietary About Our Work?

We developed a predictive production model to forecast monthly production trends in the

Mississippian, which has historically been accurate. We have calculated type well economics

for SD’s Mississippian position in comparison to other U.S. onshore oil and gas plays and

relative to its peers.

Potential Risks to Our Thesis? Where Could We Go Wrong?

SD has a significant acreage position in the Mississippian, which generates robust

investment returns. If the company would reduce the significant outspend relative to its

cash flows and high-grade its drilling program, this could lead to a favorable rerating in the

shares by improving growth metrics on a debt-adjusted basis.

12 February 2013


Investment Positives Sweet Spots in the Mississippian Provide Strong Drilling Economics

SD entered the Mississippian play in 2009 and has since acquired 1,850,000 net acres at

an attractive purchase price of $400 million. The Mississippian play encompasses 20

counties in Northwest Oklahoma and Southern Kansas. In addition, SD has identified an

extension area in Kansas. The Oklahoma portion of the Mississippian spans 1,100,000 net

acres whereas the Kansas portion spans 750,000 net acres. SD and the industry are

developing the play horizontally. Horizontal wells drilled in the Mississippian are drilled

6,000 ft vertically and 4,000 ft laterally. Current drilling and completion costs are $3.2 MM,

including allocated costs for water disposal.

Exhibit 2: Mississippian Play Map—Historical Industry Activity

Source: SandRidge.

As shown in Exhibit 3, sweet spots in the Mississippian provide some of the most

attractive economics in U.S. onshore E&P. On average, the Mississippi lime provides rates

of return that are more than 10% higher than the average unconventional onshore oil play

and 35% higher than the average gas play at the current futures strip.

12 February 2013


Exhibit 3: U.S. Basin Internal Rates of Return (IRRs)

Source: Company data, Credit Suisse estimates. Strip prices as of 1/30/2013.

Rising Activity Levels Suggest Robust Operator Interest

Understanding of the Mississippian Lime continues to evolve, driven by a step-up in

activity by operator during 2012. SD is the primary operator in the eastern part of the

basin, while RRC and DVN are emerging as primary operators on the western part of the

basin.

Exhibit 4: Industry Mississippian Rigcount

1

Mississippian Rig Count

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Ja

n-0

8

Ap

r-0

8

Ju

l-08

Oc

t-08

Ja

n-0

9

Ap

r-0

9

Ju

l-09

Oc

t-09

Ja

n-1

0

Ap

r-1

0

Ju

l-10

Oc

t-10

Ja

n-1

1

Ap

r-1

1

Ju

l-11

Oc

t-11

Ja

n-1

2

Ap

r-1

2

Ju

l-12

Oc

t-12

Ja

n-1

3

Source: Smith Bits, Credit Suisse estimates.

12 February 2013


Exhibit 5 illustrates the current operated rigcount in the play. SD is by far the largest

operator, with more than three times the activity level of the next most active player,

Chesapeake Energy (CHK).

Exhibit 5: Mississippian Play—Operated Rigcount

Operator Rigcount

SandRidge 31

Chesapeake Energy 8

Devon Energy 6

Range Prod Co 4

Highmount 3

Mid-States 3

Plymouth Res 3

ARP Oklahoma 2

Chaparral USA Energy 2

Red Fork Prod 2

Other 10

Total 74

Source: Smith Bits, Credit Suisse estimates

The basin now appears to be characterized by a higher-GOR region to the west and north

and an a more oil-rich region to the east straddling the Nemaha Ridge that cuts across

Kay, Garfield, Noble, Logan, and Kingfisher counties in Oklahoma and Cowley and

Sumner counties in Kansas.

Exhibit 6: Mississippian Formations

Source: Range Resources.

SD’s activity is concentrated in Alfalfa, Grant, Comanche, and Harper counties. (See

Exhibit 7.)

12 February 2013


Exhibit 7: SandRidge’s Mississippian Rigcount by County

County Rigcount

ALFALFA 12

GRANT 8

COMANCHE 3

HARPER 3

WOODS 2

BARBER 1

FINNEY 1

GRAY 1

FORD 0

GARFIELD 0

HODGEMAN 0

KAY 0

NESS 0

NOBLE 0

Total 31

Source: Smith Bits, Credit Suisse estimates.

SD is still accelerating its Mississippian program and expects to get to 41 rigs by mid-2013

and drill 580 horizontal Mississippian wells. The following is a snapshot of industry activity

by key operators in the play. (See Exhibit 8.)

Exhibit 8: Mississippian Lime—Current Activity


As of year-end 2011, the company had booked 146 MMBoe in the Mid-Continent. In 2012,

SD ran ~30 rigs in the Mississippian, with an objective to drill 380 gross wells (330 wells in

the core part of the play and 50 wells in the extension) at $3.2 MM per well.

Attractive Purchase Price

In 2009, SD began an aggressive leasing campaign for the horizontal Mississippian play,

citing the potential of this play given significant vertical production history from over 17,000

12 February 2013


wells. The company was able to build a 1.85 MM net acreage position at a lease cost of

$200 per acre, or approximately $400 MM in total. The lease acquisition cost looks

compelling relative to the implied purchase price in the company’s two joint venture

transactions with Atinum and Repsol.

In August 2011, SD announced a $500 MM joint venture agreement with Atinum (private

equity fund). As part of the joint venture transaction, SD conveyed a 13.2% working

interest in 860,000 acres or 113,000 acres net to Atinum. This equates to an undiscounted

transaction value of $4,400 per acre, as Atinum will fund 13.2% of SD’s working interest

expenses under a drilling carry or $3,836 on an adjusted basis.

In December 2011, SD announced a second JV transaction in the Mississippian, with a

$1.0 billion agreement with Repsol. Under this transaction, SD conveyed 16% of its net

acreage position in the original Mississippian play (113,636 net acres) and 25% of its

acreage in the extensional part of the play. Total consideration included an upfront cash

payment of $250 MM and a $750 MM drilling carry. (Repsol is on the hook for 200% of its

working interest in wells to fund SD’s cost of development.) This equated to an

undiscounted transaction value of $2,750 per acre.

As illustrated in Exhibit 9, the average adjusted acreage transaction for recent deals (21

transactions in all) has been $2,294 per acre.

Exhibit 9: Recent Mississippian Acreage Transactions

Announce Date Buyers Sellers Deal Value ($MM) Net Undev Acres $/Acre

12/22/2011 Repsol SandRidge Energy $1,000 363,636 $2,750

8/11/2012 Midstates Petroleum Company Eagle Energy Production LLC $650 90,200 $2,328

8/4/2011 Atinum (South Korea) SandRidge Energy $500 113,000 $3,836

12/22/2011 Halcon Resources LLC Ram Energy Resources Inc $428 44,157 $981

9/24/2012 Atlas Resource Partners LP Equal Energy $40 8,550 $2,500

Various Other Other $163 222,731 $1,368

Total $2,780 842,274 $2,294 Source: PLS, Credit Suisse estimates.

Benefits of Motivated BoD and Management

One of SD’s largest shareholders has commenced a consent solicitation to amend the

company’s bylaws to destagger the BoD, provide for the removal of directors ‘with or

without cause,’ and remove the existing BoD with the shareholders’ nominees. It is unclear

how this process will play out. While the solicitation process is likely a bit of a distraction

for the management team, there are clear benefits from having a motivated BoD and

management team in terms of maximizing shareholder value creation.

Mississippian Provides Optionality to Higher Production Growth

Based on our production model, which incorporates our estimated type curve, we believe

that the company’s Mississippian program is poised to drive strong oil production growth

relative to its peers. Exhibit 10 illustrates the recent trend in the company’s operated

rigcount in the Mississippian. In 2012, the company averaged 30 rigs. We are modeling a

rigcount of 37 and 38 rigs, respectively, in 2013 and 2014.

12 February 2013


Exhibit 10: SD Operated Mississippian Rigcount

SANDRIDGE Mississippian Rigcount

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Jan-1

1

Feb

-11

Mar-

11

Apr-

11

May-

11

Jun-1

1

Jul-11

Aug-1

1

Sep-1

1

Oct-11

Nov-

11

Dec-

11

Jan-1

2

Feb

-12

Mar-

12

Apr-

12

May-

12

May-

12

Jun-1

2

Jul-12

Aug-1

2

Sep-1

2

Oct-12

Nov-

12

Dec-

12

Source: Smith Bits Rigcount.

Exhibit 11 shows our production forecasts for SD in the Mississippian play. Note the

significant production growth we anticipate from the Mississippian.

Exhibit 11: SD Net Mississippian Production

SD Mississippian Production

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Jan

-10

Apr-

10

Jul-

10

Oct-

10

Jan

-11

Apr-

11

Jul-

11

Oct-

11

Jan

-12

Apr-

12

Jul-

12

Oct-

12

Jan

-13

Apr-

13

Jul-

13

Oct-

13

Jan

-14

Apr-

14

Jul-

14

Oct-

14

Jan

-15

Apr-

15

Jul-

15

Oct-

15

MB

oe/d

Source: HPDI, Smith Bits, Credit Suisse estimates.

Attractive Oil Production Growth

Exhibit 12 and Exhibit 13 illustrate our production growth estimates for SD relative to its

peers. Between 2012 and 2014, we estimate that SD will grow its oil production at a 22%

CAGR, which is in the top quartile of the peer group.

12 February 2013


Exhibit 12: Estimated Oil Production Growth (‘12 – ‘14E)

Oil Production Growth (2012 to 2014E)

50%

25%22% 22%

18% 17%14% 14% 13% 12% 10%

8% 10%7%

2%

-3%

-10%

-25%

-15%

-5%

5%

15%

25%

35%

45%

55%

PX

P

PX

D

SD

EO

G

NB

L

CH

K

AP

C

DV

N

CX

O

WL

L

CO

P

AP

A

MR

O

OX

Y

DN

R

HE

S

SW

N


We see similar production strength extended into 2015, with SD’s production poised to rise

21% per year. Again, SD should have one of the strongest oil production growth rates in

our coverage group.

Exhibit 13: Estimated Oil Production Growth (‘12 – ‘15E)

Oil Production Growth (2012 to 2015E)

35%

24%21%

16% 15% 15%13% 13%

11%9% 8% 7% 6%

4%1%

-11%

-25%

-15%

-5%

5%

15%

25%

35%

45%

PX

P

PX

D

SD

EO

G

DV

N

CH

K

NB

L

CX

O

AP

C

CO

P

OX

Y

AP

A

MR

O

DN

R

HE

S

SW

N


Benefits of Scale

One of the key challenges of the play is the significant amount of water that is produced.

Typical Mississippian wells produce between 1,000 and 5,000 Bbls of water per day. As a

result, the development of the play requires significant water disposal infrastructure

through salt water disposal (SWD) wells. On average, SWD wells cost approximately

$2.0 to $3.0 MM per copy. SD’s peers are developing the Mississippian under a ratio of six

12 February 2013


to eight wells per SWD well. However, SD anticipates developing the play with a ratio of

10 to 12 wells per SWD well, which will translate into a savings of $130,000 per well,

thereby reducing invested capital per well.

Discounted Valuation Relative to Net Asset Value

Exhibit 14 illustrates our comparative valuation table for Credit Suisse’s U.S. E&P

coverage. SD shares are trading at a discounted valuation relative to the peer group on

net asset value (NAV). The shares are valued at a 36% discount to our $9.00 per share

NAV, while our E&P coverage universe trades at a 12% discount to NAV.

Exhibit 14: E&P Coverage – Comparative Valuation Table

Large Cap($M, except per share) Market Data Net EV/

Current 52-Wk YTD Fully dil. Debt/ NAV EBIDA EBIDA

Price Low High (%) EV* Cap $/sh P/NAV 2012E 2013E '12E '13E

APA $83.81 $75 $112 3.8% $43,498 25% $109 77% $9,030 $12,633 4.8x 3.4x

APC $83.47 $56 $89 9.7% $52,379 34% $108 77% $8,229 $9,742 6.4x 5.4x

CHK $20.05 $13 $26 20.8% $27,102 44% $23 87% $1,194 $5,196 22.7x 5.2x

CXO (PF) $96.52 $76 $117 17.8% $13,176 52% $94 103% $1,454 $1,812 9.1x 7.0x

DVN $59.70 $51 $76 13.8% $28,812 17% $75 80% $4,873 $5,885 5.9x 4.9x

EOG $133.34 $82 $138 7.8% $41,672 29% $118 113% $6,165 $7,049 6.8x 5.9x

NBL $112.75 $77 $116 9.2% $22,754 23% $140 81% $3,027 $4,063 7.5x 5.6x

PXD $128.55 $77 $134 17.1% $19,097 37% $150 86% $2,036 $2,750 9.4x 6.9x

RRC $70.68 $53 $74 13.9% $14,223 56% $82 86% $707 $1,081 20.1x 13.2x

SWN $33.59 $26 $37 0.7% $13,434 34% $30 112% $1,625 $1,857 8.3x 7.2x

MEAN: 11.5% 35.1% 90.1% 10.1x 6.5x

MEDIAN: 11.8% 34.0% 85.9% 7.9x 5.8x

Mid Cap($M, except per share) Market Data Net EV/



DNR $18.75 $13 $21 13.6% $9,354 28% $24 78% $1,475 $1,594 6.3x 5.9x

EXXI $32.41 $26 $40 -1.8% $3,744 37% $42 77% $812 $728 4.6x 5.1x

ROSE $50.48 $32 $55 8.5% $3,035 33% $69 73% $337 $548 9.0x 5.5x

SD (PF) $5.73 $5 $9 -11.6% $6,996 58% $9 64% $1,116 $1,000 6.3x 4.4x

WLL $49.01 $36 $64 8.9% $7,555 34% $52 94% $1,221 $1,556 6.2x 4.9x

MEAN: 3.5% 38.0% 77.3% 6.5x 5.2x

MEDIAN: 8.5% 34.0% 77.2% 6.3x 5.1x

Small Cap($M, except per share) Market Data Net EV/



BCEI $34.04 $15 $35 18.7% $1,493 20% $37 92% $111 $226 13.5x 6.6x

BRY $38.74 $30 $57 11.0% $3,794 63% $32 121% $490 $579 7.7x 6.6x

CRK $14.19 $13 $21 -7.3% $1,972 55% $15 95% $384 $445 5.1x 4.4x

CRZO $22.35 $19 $32 5.9% $1,881 63% $20 112% $273 $328 6.9x 5.7x

FANG $21.56 $16 $23 12.1% $966 57% $26 83% $44 $137 22.0x 7.0x

FST $7.03 $6 $15 1.7% $2,644 88% $6 117% $312 $424 8.5x 6.2x

GPOR $38.68 $16 $43 -3.4% $2,427 17% $57 68% $81 $114 30.1x 21.2x

KOG $9.19 $7 $11 -1.5% $3,427 49% $10 92% $282 $557 12.1x 6.2x

MHR $3.92 $3 $8 -5.5% $1,400 46% $6 65% $105 $268 13.3x 5.2x

PDCE $43.86 $19 $44 27.5% $1,902 45% $57 77% $183 $222 10.4x 8.6x

PVA $4.94 $4 $8 8.8% $726 38% $6 82% $262 $280 2.8x 2.6x

REXX $13.32 $9 $15 0.0% $893 32% $13 102% $45 $113 20.0x 7.9x

SFY $15.45 $14 $36 -0.9% $1,546 46% $23 67% $323 $442 4.8x 3.5x

MEAN: 5.2% 47.6% 90.3% 12.1x 7.1x

MEDIAN: 1.7% 46.0% 91.9% 10.4x 6.2x

Universe MEAN: 7.1% 41.4% 87.9% 10.4x 6.5x

MEDIAN: 8.6% 37.5% 84.3% 8.0x 5.8x Source: Company data, Credit Suisse estimates.

12 February 2013


Permanent Relief in Sight to Reduce Crude Oil Differentials

One of the key headwinds for producers such as SD that market their crude at Cushing

has been the lack of takeaway capacity, which has pressured differentials. As a result of

meaningful midstream investment, there is 1.2 MMbbls per day of pipeline infrastructure

that is set for completion from the Permian Basin and Cushing to the Gulf Coast, which

should narrow Midland differentials (as well as WTI) over time relative to LLS.

Exhibit 15: Key Canadian and U.S. Oil Pipelines

Source: CAPP.

The key infrastructure projects include the Seaway Reversal and Permian Express and

Longhorn Reversal projects, which will enable the transport of Permian Basin volumes to

the Gulf Coast.

12 February 2013


Exhibit 16: Incremental Takeaway Capacity from the Permian and Cushing

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Dec-12E Feb-13E Apr-13E Jun-13E Aug-13E Oct-13E Dec-13E

WTG Seaway Keystone XL Permian Express Longhorn Reversal


Exhibit 17 illustrates Credit Suisse’s Permian Basin supply/demand model developed by

our integrated oils team. Following incremental midstream additions, we forecast that there

is ample takeaway capacity beginning in 2013 to handle rising Permian volumes. As such,

we expect Cushing as well as Permian Basin crudes to trade at tighter differentials relative

to LLS.

Exhibit 17: Permian Supply/Demand Model

0

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

1750

2000

2250

2500

2750

3000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

KB

D

Refinery Pipelines

Rail/Other (net flows) Permian - Supply


12 February 2013


Investment Negatives Statistical Play

SD is developing the Mississippian play using a statistical approach that is not based on

the use of modern 3-D seismic data. Management believes that its approach is sound,

citing data from 17,000 vertical well penetrations across the play as well as the cost of

seismic, which would burden returns and cash flows. While this approach does reduce the

overall development costs of the play, this development approach could lead to more

variability in well results, given the vast acreage position of the play.

The play is in the early stages of horizontal development, with limited production history.

As illustrated in Exhibit 18, there is meaningful variability between well results, given the

heterogeneous nature of this conventional reservoir.

Exhibit 18: Mississippian Play—30-Day Avg. Peak Rate (Boe/d)


Both RRC and SD noted steeper-than-expected oil declines relative to NGLs and natural

gas. RRC stated that it estimates that oil will comprise ~50% of total initial production rates

but expects it to make up ~33% of the expected EUR. SD also reported that historical

performance from its 400 wells has exhibited a steeper oil decline and revised its average

Mississippian well EUR to 155 MBbl of oil and 1.6 Bcf natural gas vs. its previous estimate

of 204 MBbl of oil and 1.5 Bcf of natural gas. We are using a prospective well cost of $3.0

MM going forward, assuming some benefit from efficiencies and a higher density of wells

per SWD well.

12 February 2013


Exhibit 19: SandRidge Well Economics in the Mississippian

Well Productivity

30 day rate (MBoe/d) 0.267

Gross EUR (MMBoe) 0.436

Net EUR (MMBoe) 0.358

1st year decline -70%

B-factor (Oil) 1.75

B-factor (Gas) 3.00

Cost Assumptions

Completed well cost $3.00

LOE & Gathering 8.00

Production taxes 4.0%

Tax rate % 36.0%

Royalty 18.0%

Discount rate 10.0%

Well economics

F&D cost $8.39

IRR (after-tax) 24.9%

NPV per well ( MM) $2.1

NPV/I 0.7x

PV-10 (MM) $5.1

PV/I (x) 1.7x

Disc. payback period (yrs) 3.25

Undisc. payback period (yrs) 2.58

SD Mississippian Program

0.0

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.2

0.3

0.3

0.4

0.4

0.5

0.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.2

20

12

20

14

20

16

20

18

20

20

20

22

20

24

20

26

20

28

20

30

20

32

20

34

20

36

20

38

20

40

20

42

20

44

20

46

20

48

20

50

Cu

mu

lati

ve

Pro

du

cti

on

(B

cfe

)

Da

ily G

as

Pro

du

cti

on

(M

Mcf/

d)


Debt-Adjusted Cash Flow Growth

While SD’s oil production growth rate is attractive, as shown in Exhibit 12 and Exhibit 13,

we expect the company to outspend its cash flows for the foreseeable future. As such, we

believe that it is important to translate oil production growth into cash flow growth to adjust

for differences in per barrel margins. In Exhibit 20 and Exhibit 21, we analyze how the

increased oil production will translate into cash flows. Between 2012 and 2014, capex-

adjusted cash flow per share growth is in the bottom quartile at -2%, trailing the peer group

average of 17%. Between 2012 and 2015, capex-adjusted cash flow per share growth for

SD is -5% compared to the peer group average of 12%.

Exhibit 22 rolls forward the cash flow multiples adjusting the balance sheet for anticipated

cash inflows or outflows between 2012 and 2013.

Exhibit 20: Debt Adjusted Cash Flow Growth ’12-‘14 Exhibit 21: Debt Adjusted Cash Flow Growth ’12-‘15

Capex Adjusted Cash Flow per Share Growth (2012E to 2014E)

Average: 17%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

CR

K

RR

C

MR

O

EN

I

NB

L

CX

O

PX

D

EO

G

AP

C

CH

K

AP

A

CO

P

OX

Y

SW

N

DV

N

RD

S.A

DN

R

HE

S

XO

M

TO

T

CV

X

SD

CR

ZO

Capex Adjusted Cash Flow per Share Growth (2012E to 2015E)

Average: 12%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

CR

K

RR

C

EN

I

MR

O

CX

O

SW

N

NB

L

DV

N

PX

D

AP

C

EO

G

RD

S.A

AP

A

CH

K

OX

Y

TO

T

CO

P

XO

M

DN

R

CV

X

HE

S

SD

CR

ZO

Source: Company data, Credit Suisse estimates Source: Company data, Credit Suisse estimates

12 February 2013


Exhibit 22: SD 2013 Forward EV/CF Multiple vs. Peer Group

2013 Forward EV/CF

Average: 6.3x

0.0x

2.0x

4.0x

6.0x

8.0x

10.0x

12.0x

14.0x

16.0xA

PA

EN

I

CR

K

TO

T

MR

O

RD

S.A

CV

X

OX

Y

HE

S

CO

P

NB

L

AP

C

EO

G

DV

N

CR

ZO

XO

M

CH

K

DN

R

SWN SD

PX

D

CX

O

RR

C

Mo

reE

xp

en

siv

eL

ess E

xp

en

siv

e

Source: Company data, Credit Suisse estimates

Increase in Offshore Production Base May Compress SD’s Relative Multiple

Exhibit 23 illustrates the pro forma historical production from the acquired assets on a

gross basis. Note the historic volatility in the production stream, which will likely lead to

greater swings in SD’s quarterly production over time. We believe that this increased

volatility as well has higher reinvestment risk relative to onshore will likely compress SD’s

relative multiple over time.

Exhibit 23: GoM Acquisition—Historical Production

GoM Production from Dynamic

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

Jul-

58

Jun

-60

May

-62

Ap

r-64

Mar

-66

Feb

-68

Jan-

70

Dec

-71

No

v-73

Oct

-75

Sep

-77

Au

g-79

Jul-

81

Jun

-83

May

-85

Ap

r-87

Mar

-89

Feb

-91

Jan-

93

Dec

-94

No

v-96

Oct

-98

Sep

-00

Au

g-02

Jul-

04

Jun

-06

May

-08

Ap

r-10

Mar

-12

Bo

e/d


12 February 2013


Exhibit 24 illustrates the GoM comparables. Excluding MMR, which is trading on

anticipation of multi-Tcf discoveries on the ultra-deep shelf, the GoM-focused E&Ps are

trading at 3.2 times 2013E EBITDA. This compares to our large-cap peer group at 6.2

times and E&P coverage group average of 5.7 times.

Exhibit 24: GoM Company Comparables

EV/Proved EV/Current

EV/EBITDA Reserves Production Reserves

Ticker EV ($MM) 2012E 2013E 2014E EV/PV-10 ($/Boe) ($/MBoepd) %Oil %PD

ATPG $2,709 5.8x 4.1x 64.0% 22.83 $108.5 66% 23%

CPE $273 3.0x 3.4x 2.9x 158.0% 17.13 $54.1 63%

EPL $709 3.1x 1.5x 1.4x 64.8% 19.14 $64.0 74% 91%

EXXI $3,652 4.1x 3.0x 2.6x 85.1% 30.5 $82.8 71% 68%

MMR $3,038 75.0x 10.0x 342.3% 71.25 $133.0 37% 85%

SGY $1,849 3.0x 3.1x 2.8x 119.8% 18.43 $51.3 46% 60%

WTI $2,283 3.5x 3.9x 3.6x 73.7% 19.58 $49.2 44% 65%

Median $2,496 3.8x 3.2x 2.7x 102.5% 21.205 $73.4 65% 65% Source: Company data, FactSet, Bloomberg.

SD’s Business Model Has Meaningfully Outspent Its Cash Flows Every Year since

Its IPO

Exhibit 25 illustrates SD’s five-year aggregate capex and acquisition program and sources

of funding for its investments in property and drilling. Over this time period, SD has spent

$9.3 billion in capex, including acquisitions. However, operating cash flow and asset sales

have represented only 40% of its spending program, which has necessitated significant

funding from equity (27%), debt instruments (26%), and royalty trusts (7%).

Exhibit 25: 2007 to 2011—Funding Sources for Capex

2007 - 2011

Capex $9,288

Operating cash $2,267

Asset Sales $1,515

Borrowings, net $2,517

Equity $2,637

Royalty Trusts $671

Total Funding $9,607

SD Capex & Funding 5-Year Aggregate

24%

16%26%

27%

7%

Operating cash Asset Sales

Borrowings, net Equity

Royalty Trusts


Exhibit 26 through Exhibit 31 illustrate the capex and acquisition program relative to

funding on a per annum basis since 2007. Since going public in 2007, the company’s

operating cash flow has yet to fund the company’s spending program, requiring excess

funding. In fact, operating cash flows have never funded even half of the company’s

spending program, with the highest percentage coming in 2010, when internally generated

cash flows represented only 37% of overall spending.

12 February 2013


Exhibit 26: 2007—Funding Sources for Capex Exhibit 27: 2008—Funding Sources for Capex

2007

Capex $1,397

Operating cash $296

Asset Sales $9

Borrowings, net $0

Equity $1,080

Royalty Trusts $0


SD 2007 Capex & Funding

21%1%

78%

Operating cash Asset Sales Equity

2008

Capex $2,058

Operating cash $540

Asset Sales $159


Equity $0

Royalty Trusts $0



27%

8%

65%

Operating cash Asset Sales Borrowings, net

Source: Company data, Credit Suisse estimates. Source: Company data, Credit Suisse estimates.


2009

Capex $1,510

Operating cash $309

Asset Sales $263

Borrowings, net $184

Equity $762

Royalty Trusts $0



21%

17%

12%

50%

0%



2010

Capex $1,183

Operating cash $452

Asset Sales $205

Borrowings, net $315

Equity $255

Royalty Trusts $0



37%

16%26%

21%

0%





2011

Capex $1,778

Operating cash $587

Asset Sales $859

Borrowings, net $0

Equity $0

Royalty Trusts $671



28%

40%

32%

Operating cash Asset Sales Royalty Trusts

2012

Capex $3,061

Operating cash $1,148

Asset Sales $422


Equity $0

Royalty Trusts $0



37%

14%

49% 0%

Operating cash Asset Sales Borrowings, net


Exhibit 32 shows the relationship between capex and operating cash flow in 2013. Based

on our forecasts, we expect this level of meaningful outspend to continue consistent with

the company’s historical patterns. In fact, the company is outspending its cash flow by the

most in the peer group.

12 February 2013


Exhibit 32: 2013 Capex Relative to Discretionary Cash Flows

Capex to Operating Cash Flow 2013

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

DNR APC APA NBL EOG CXO SWN PXD DVN CHK SD

Series1 Series2 Series3

average capex/CF under CS price deck: 114%


Stretched Balance Sheet

Following the gas price collapse and consistent outspend of its cash flows, SD’s financial

position has been under duress. The company’s balance sheet metrics appear below

average. Even after factoring in the impact from the anticipated sale of its Permian assets,

SD’s net 2013 debt-to-EBITDA multiple of 2.1 times is meaningfully above the peer group

multiple of 1.4. In addition, SD has one of the lowest interest coverage ratios of its peers,

with an EBITDA/interest expense ratio of 4.1, compared to the group median of 16.0.

Exhibit 33: E&P Debt Ratio Analysis

2013

EBITDA

Interest

expense

2013 Net

Debt

EBITDA to Interest

Expense

Debt /

Ebitda

APA $13,637 $160 $9,173 85.2x 0.7x

NBL $4,340 $126 $3,335 34.4x 0.8x

EOG $7,537 $258 $5,925 29.2x 0.8x

APC $10,500 $656 $9,272 16.0x 0.9x

SWN $1,880 $114 $1,873 16.5x 1.0x

PXD $2,801 $272 $3,965 10.3x 1.4x

DVN $6,019 $519 $9,179 11.6x 1.5x

CXO $1,778 $205 $3,069 8.7x 1.7x

DNR $1,650 $191 $3,155 8.6x 1.9x

CHK $5,240 $100 $10,879 52.6x 2.1x

SD $1,073 $265 $2,301 4.1x 2.1x

Avg. 25.2x 1.4x Source: Credit Suisse Estimates, company data.

In August 2012, Moody’s upgraded SD’s debt rating to B-1 from B-2, citing the size of its

reserve base and increasing growth in oil production, which Moody’s expects would

maintain leverage near existing levels, given cash flow growth. That said, S&P placed

SD’s senior unsecured debt on credit watch on January 22, with a negative bias. S&P

viewed the reduction in the company’s asset base following the planned sale of its

Permian Basin assets as outweighing the anticipated deleveraging after the transaction.

12 February 2013


Claims on Cash

Analysis of SD’s financial position suggests that there is more than $300 MM per annum in

‘unproductive’ capex related to royalty trusts, P&A obligations, and the under-delivery of CO2.

■ While the key rationale of the Dynamic Offshore transaction was to help improve the

company’s balance sheet and cash flow profile, there are meaningful P&A obligations

associated with the properties. In 2012, SD spent approximately $70 MM for P&A, and

the company expects its P&A costs to increase to $120 MM in 2013.

■ SandRidge estimates that ~$500 million is required to fulfill its drilling obligations for

the three royalty trusts. Capex spent on the underlying properties in the royalty trusts

is included in the company’s reported E&P capex and guidance.

■ In order to facilitate expansion of CO2 treating capacity in the WTO, SD constructed a

CO2 treatment plant in Pecos County, Texas, and associated compression and

pipeline facilities pursuant to an agreement with Occidental Petroleum Corporation

(OXY). Under the terms of the agreement, OXY paid SD a minimum of 100% of the

contract price, or $800 MM, plus any subsequently agreed-upon revisions, through

periodic cost reimbursements based upon the percentage of the project completed by

the company. Pursuant to a 30-year treating agreement executed simultaneously with

the construction agreement to build the Century Plant, OXY was expected to separate

CO2 from SD’s delivered natural gas production volumes. Under this agreement, SD

is required to deliver certain CO2 volumes annually to OXY and is on the hook for

under-delivery of volumes, which is now the case, as SD is no longer committing

capital to the WTO. In 2012, SD accrued an approximate $20 MM liability related to its

shortfall in meeting its delivery obligations. Going forward, this obligation is expected

to increase to $30 to $40 MM per annum.

12 February 2013


Company Description and Strategy SandRidge Energy, Inc. (SD) traces its roots to the state of Texas, where it was originally

organized as Riata Energy in 1984. In 2006, the company completed a corporate

reorganization and was renamed SandRidge Energy. Tom Ward, who cofounded

Chesapeake Energy Corporation (CHK) in 1989 and served as its president and COO until

February 2006, joined SD as the company’s chairman and CEO in June 2006. The

company completed its IPO in November 2007, raising $795 MM. The company began

trading on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “SD.” The key elements of the

company’s business model are:

■ Concentrate in Core Operating Areas: SD’s primary areas of operation are West

Texas and the Mid-Continent area of Oklahoma and Kansas, which includes the

Mississippian formation. Concentrating on these core areas allows the company to

build and utilize its technical expertise to interpret specific geological and

operational trends. Furthermore, the company is able to achieve economies of

scale and breadth of operations, both of which help it to control its costs.

■ Focus on Conventional Reservoirs: SD focuses its development efforts primarily

in areas with conventional, shallow, low-cost, permeable carbonate reservoirs with

decades of production history. The nature of these reservoirs allows it to execute

low-risk, repeatable drilling programs with predictable production profiles and a

higher certainty of economic returns. Furthermore, due to these low-pressure and

shallow characteristics, the company is able to mitigate rising service costs.

■ Maintain Flexibility: SD has multiyear drilling inventories of both oil and natural

gas drilling locations within its core operating areas. Additionally, it maintains its

own fleet of drilling rigs through its Lariat Services subsidiary (31 rigs). The

company believes that its undrilled inventory and vertical integration allow it

efficiently to direct capital toward projects with the most attractive returns.

■ Mitigate Commodity Price Risk: SD enters into hedging contracts in order to

mitigate commodity price volatility. By increasing the predictability of cash inflows

for a portion of its future production, the company is better able to ensure funding

for longer-term development plans and rates of return associated with those plans.

■ Monetize Noncore Assets: SD periodically evaluates its properties to identify

opportunities to monetize noncore assets in order to fund or accelerate

development within its areas of focus or, alternatively, pay down amounts

outstanding under its revolving credit facility.

Historical Transactions

Exhibit 34 shows the key asset transactions that SD has completed since 2006.

Exhibit 34: SD Historical Asset Acquisitions

SandRidge Historical Asset Acquisitions

Announce Date Target Name Deal Value (MM)

Sep-06 NEG Oil & Gas LLC $1,518

Nov-09 Assets in the Permian from Forest Oil & Gas $800

Apr-10 Arena Resources Inc $1,564

Feb-12 Dynamic Offshore Resources LLC $1,287 Source: Company data.

Acquisition of NEG Oil & Gas LLC—November 2006

Tom Ward spearheaded the acquisition of NEG Oil & Gas in November 2006 for net

consideration of $1.5 billion, as part of SD’s strategy to expand its core asset base of the

West Texas Overthrust and focus on natural gas. The acquisition increased SD’s net

acreage in the WTO from approximately 167K acres to over 260K acres, added ~500 Bcfe

12 February 2013


of proven reserves to its predeal inventory of 272 Bcfe. The company’s production

quadrupled followed the transaction. SD subsequently became the largest operator and

producer with the largest acreage positions in the WTO and owned 83% working interest

in the Piñon Field, which had been the company’s single most prolific field within the WTO,

accounting for 70% of the company’s proven reserves in the area before the transaction.

In addition, the transaction added assets in the Texas Gulf Coast, Gulf of Mexico, and

eastern Texas to SD’s portfolio.

Asset Purchase from Forest Oil (FST)—December 2009

In the wake of falling gas prices, SD initiated a strategic shift to pursuing more oil

production and reserves in 2009. In December 2009, the company completed an

$800 million asset purchase in the Central Basin Platform of the Permian Basin from

Forest Oil, which meaningfully increased the percentage share of oil in SD’s product mix.

The assets primarily consisted of six operated areas in the Central Basin Platform and

greater Permian Basin area of western Texas and eastern New Mexico. These properties

were characterized by multiple producing horizons, including the Spraberry, Wolfcamp,

Grayburg, San Andres, and Wichita-Albany formations. The acquired areas of 90,000 net

acres target the Clear Fork formation at about 7,000 feet in the Central Basin Platform.

The transaction made the Permian a new focus area for the company, paralleling the WTO.

The acquired properties included 80 MMBoe of proven reserves (52% oil, 65% liquids,

44% PDP) and 90 MMBoe of probable and possible reserves. As a result of the acquisition

and a significant write-down of gas reserves in the WTO due to low gas prices, the

pro forma total proven reserve base of the company was 219 MMBoe, consisting of 48%

oil vs. 12% previously.

Acquisition of Arena Resources—April 2010

Four months following the close of the Permian asset purchase in December 2009, SD

announced its intention to merge with Arena Resources (ARD), whose key assets lied in

the San Andres formation and Fuhrman-Mascho field in the Central Basin Platform. These

assets were in close proximity to the assets acquired from Forest. SD offered $1.6 billion

for Arena, representing a 17% premium to ARD shares. The deal was financed through a

combination of common stock (94%) and cash (6%). SD offered $2.50 in cash and 4.771

SD shares for each ARD share.

The acquisition was another step by SD to increase its oil mix, with a meaningful footprint

in the Permian Basin. Arena had 67,600 net acres, 69.3 MMBoe of proven reserves (37%

PD), and 8.5 MBoe/d of production (86% oil). The proven reserves were valued at

$1,121 million using the SEC 12-month average case ($3.87/Mcf and $57.65/Bbl) and

$1,820 million at strip prices ($5.79/Mcf and $79.34/Bbl). Through the acquisition, SD

increased its liquids production mix to 36% from 28% and oil reserve concentration to 57%

from 48%. Another key benefit of the transaction was an improved balance sheet, with the

company’s pro forma leverage ratio declining to 66% from 108% prior to the transaction.

Acquisition of Dynamic Offshore Resources LLC—February 2012

In February 2012, SD acquired Dynamic Offshore, LLC for $1,275 million, financed by

$680 million of cash and the issuance of 74 million shares. Dynamic Offshore primarily

operated in water depths of less than 300 feet and was producing ~25 MBoed of oil and

gas as of year-end 2011. The acquisition added 62.5 MMBoe proved reserves (~50% oil,

81% developed) to SD’s portfolio.

Dynamic was an oil-focused E&P operating in shallow water development in the Gulf of

Mexico (GoM) Shelf. Prior to the acquisition, Dynamic had 490,000 net acres in the GoM,

with interests in over 270 producing wells and 250 offshore leases.

While the transaction appeared to be a divergence from the company’s focus on its core

assets in the Mississippian and Permian, management argued that the move was

consistent with its strategy to purchase undervalued oil assets from mature fields. The

12 February 2013


acquisition also served as a funding mechanism that would help SD meet its three-year

plan to double production, triple EBITDA, and reduce leverage. Following the transaction,

SD’s year-end 2011 net debt-to-EBITDA ratio decreased from 4.0 to 3.3, while its

net debt-to-capital remained at ~50%.

Asset Sales

Exhibit 35 shows a summary of SD’s historical asset sale transactions. In contrast to the

bulk of its peers, the company jettisoned the bulk of its unconventional oil and gas assets

to focus on its conventional assets in the Permian and Mississippian. In July 2010, the

company sold its assets in the Cana-Woodford play in Oklahoma for $140 MM. It also sold

40K net acres in the Avalon shale and Bone Spring reservoirs of the Permian Basin for

$110 MM in December 2010. SD sold its Wolfberry assets in the Permian basin in January

2011 for $155 MM. It also divested 23K net acres in the Wolfcamp shale play in Eddy and

Lea counties of New Mexico for $200 MM. In September 2011, SD divested ~25K net

acres of natural gas properties in East Texas for $231 MM.

Exhibit 35: SD Historical Asset Sales

SandRidge Historical Asset Sales

Announce Date Target Name Deal Value (MM)

May-08 Piceance Basin Assets/CO $285

Jun-09 Midstream Assets $200

Jul-09 Pinon Gathering Co LLC $200

Jul-10 Assets in the Cana Woodford $140

Dec-10 Assets in the Bone Spring $110

Jan-11 Wolfberry Assets $155

Mar-11 23K Net Acres in the Wolfcamp $200

Aug-11 Mississipian Play $250

Sep-11 Natural Gas Assets in East Texas $231

Dec-11 Extension Mississippian Play $250

Jun-12 SandRidge Tertiary LLC $130

Source: Company data.

12 February 2013


Asset Overview As of December 31, 2011, SD’s proven reserve base was at 470.6 MMBoe (52% oil and

48% natural gas). The company has a relatively high proportion of proved undeveloped

reserves at 51%, reflecting strong reserve bookings in the Mid-Continent basin (including

the Mississippian play) and acquisitions in the West Texas Overthrust (WTO) region. The

reserve base does not include the impact of the February 2012 acquisition of Dynamic

Offshore, which added an incremental 62.5 MMBoe of proven reserves.

Exhibit 36: Proven Reserves (12/31/11) Exhibit 37: Composition of Proven Reserves

Mid-Continent

31%

Permian Basin

40%

Other

5%

Gulf Coast

1%

WTO

22%

Gulf of

Mexico

1%

Oil

52%

Natural Gas

48%

Source: Company data. Source: Company data.

Exhibit 38 displays SD’s historical production growth on a quarterly basis since 2007:

Exhibit 38: Quarterly Production 2007 – 2012

SD Quarterly Production 2007 - 2012

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

Q1

-200

7

Q2

-200

7

Q3

-200

7

Q4

-200

7

Q1

-200

8

Q2

-200

8

Q3

-200

8

Q4

-200

8

Q1

-200

9

Q2

-200

9

Q3

-200

9

Q4

-200

9

Q1

-201

0

Q2

-201

0

Q3

-201

0

Q4

-201

0

Q1

-201

1

Q2

-201

1

Q3

-201

1

Q4

-201

1

Q1

-201

2

Q2

-201

2

Q3

-201

2

Qu

art

erl

y P

rod

uct

ion

(MM

Bo

e)


SD operates in three business segments: (1) Exploration and Production (E&P),

(2) Drilling and Oil Field Services, and (3) Midstream Gas Services. The company’s E&P

assets are primarily located in the Mid-Continent and Permian Basin. In addition, it also

operates leasehold positions in the West Texas Overthrust (WTO), Gulf Coast, and Gulf of

Mexico. In December 2012, SD announced an agreement to sell its Permian assets to

Sheridan Production for $2.6 billion. Exhibit 39 displays SD’s historical reserve growth

since 2007.

12 February 2013


Exhibit 39: SD’s Historical Reserve Growth

Historical Reserve Growth (MMBoe)

100

200

300

400

500

600

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

MM

bo

e

Oil Gas


Exploration & Production (E&P)

SD’s principal areas of operations are in the Mid-Continent and Permian basin. It also

operates in the West Texas Overthrust (WTO), Gulf Coast, and the Gulf of Mexico. (See

Exhibit 40.)

12 February 2013


Exhibit 40: SD’s Operations Overview


Mid-Continent

SD holds interests in ~1,698K gross (1,332K net) leasehold and option acres in Oklahoma

and Kansas as of December 31, 2011. Proved reserves as of December 31, 2011, totaled

145.5 MMBoe, 41% of which were proved developed reserves.

■ Mississippian Formation: SD’s primary focus within the Mid-Continent area is the

Mississippian formation, which is an expansive carbonate hydrocarbon system located

on the Anadarko Shelf in northern Oklahoma and Kansas. The top of this formation is

encountered between approximately 4,000 and 7,000 feet and lies stratigraphically

between the Pennsylvanian-aged Morrow formation and the Devonian-aged Woodford

Shale formation. The Mississippian formation can reach 1,000 feet in gross thickness,

and the targeted porosity zone is between 50 and 100 feet in thickness. The

formation's geology is well understood as a result of the thousands of vertical wells

drilled and produced since the 1940s. SD currently has 2,300,000 gross (1,850,000

net) acres under lease, of which 49,600 gross (42,000 net) acres are included in the

Mississippian Trust I's area of mutual interest (AMI) and 81,200 gross (53,000 net)

acres are included in the Mississippian Trust ǁ’s AMI.

The Mississippian play demonstrated significant potential beginning in 2007 through

the application of horizontal drilled and multistage hydraulic fracturing treatments

Since the beginning of 2009, there have been over 1,140 horizontal wells drilled in the

Mississippian formation in northern Oklahoma and Kansas, including 507 drilled by SD

as of Q3 2012. As of September 30, 2012, SD was running 30 horizontal rigs in the

Mississippian. The company plans to drill 388 gross (265 net) horizontal wells in the

Mississippian formation during 2012.

Mississippian Trust I

As a result of its significant acreage position in the Mississippian and need for additional

funding to finance its capex program, SD created a royalty in the Mississippian. In April

2011, SandRidge IPO’ed 17,250,000 common units of its Mississippian Trust I for net cash

12 February 2013


proceeds of $336.9 million. Under the Trust agreement, unit holders have royalty interests

in 37 producing wells and 123 horizontal development wells to be drilled in an AMI

spanning 42,000 net acres in the Mississippian in Alfalfa, Garfield, Grant, Major, and

Woods counties in Oklahoma. (See Exhibit 41.)

The Trust is entitled to receive 90% of the sales (after deducting postproduction costs and

production taxes) from the PD wells and 50% from the PUD wells. SD will have until

December 31, 2014 (or December 31, 2015, in the event of delays), to complete its drilling

obligations, and the company is liable for all the capex and production costs associated

with these development wells. Until it fulfills its drilling obligations, SD may not sell the

properties subject to the royalty interests in the trust development wells.

There is no minimum distribution amount, and quarterly distributions could vary with

factors including the timing of the development wells, commodity prices, volume of oil and

gas sold, etc. However, SD will receive certain incentive rewards if income from the Trust’s

properties exceeds a certain threshold.

As of September 2012, the company owned 29.3% of the Mississippian Trust 1 and had

drilled 94 development wells, with 29 wells (~24%) remaining under its obligations. On

February 27, 2012, the company sold an additional 1,583,937 common units of its

Mississippian Trust I common units for proceeds of $52.3 million. On October 2, 2012, the

company sold approximately 688,000 of its Mississippian Trust I common units in a

transaction exempt from registration under Rule 144 under the Securities Act for proceeds

of approximately $15.8 million. As a result of these sales, the company’s beneficial interest

in the Mississippian Trust I decreased to 26.9%.

A wholly owned subsidiary of SandRidge set up a lien to the Trust to secure the estimated

amount of drilling costs for the development wells. The lien amount decreases as SD

fulfills its drilling obligations over time. As of September 2012, the maximum recoverable

amount under the lien was ~$38.8 million.

Exhibit 41: SandRidge Mississippian Trust I (SDT)—Area of Mutual Interest


12 February 2013


Mississippian Trust II

In April 2012, SD sold 29,900,000 common units of its Mississippian Trust II, generating

net cash proceeds of ~$587.1 million. SD retained approximately 7.4 million common units

and 12.4 million subordinated units.

The Mississippian Trust II is similar to the structure of the Mississippian Trust I. The Trust

will have royalty interests in 67 producing wells and 206 horizontal development wells to

be drilled by December 31, 2016. The royalty interests entitle the Trust to receive 80% of

the proceeds (after deducting postproduction costs and production taxes) from the

producing wells and 70% from the development wells. The Area of Mutual Interest (AMI)

extends across 53 K net acres in the Mississippian formation in northern Oklahoma and

southern Kansas. (See Exhibit 42.)

As of September 2012, SD owned 39.9% of the Mississippian Trust 2 and had drilled 77

development wells, with 129 wells (~63%) remaining under its obligations. The maximum

recoverable amount under the lien for the Mississippian Trust II was $269.1 million.

Exhibit 42: SandRidge Mississippian Trust II (SDR)—Area of Mutual Interest


Permian Basin

As of December 31, 2011, SD held interests in ~319K gross (225K net) leasehold acres in

the Permian Basin, of which ~17.5K gross (16K net) acres were included in the Permian

Trust’s area of mutual interest. Associated proved reserves as of December 31, 2011,

were 187.0 MMBoe, 58% of which were proved developed reserves. The company’s

interests in the Permian Basin as of December 31, 2011, included 3,125 gross (2,976 net)

producing wells with an average working interest of 96.2%.

■ Central Basin Platform: SD significantly expanded its holdings in the Permian

Basin, specifically the Central Basin Platform (CBP), through the Forest acquisition

in December 2009 and the Arena merger in July 2010. These acquisitions added

significant Permian Basin production from the Midland and Delaware Basins in

Texas as well as the Northwest Shelf in New Mexico. Reserves and associated

production in this area are predominantly oil. The primary reservoirs in the CBP are

12 February 2013


the dolomites and limestones of the Grayburg-San Andres and Clear Fork

formations. To date, the San Andres and Clear Fork zones have produced more

than 4.0 and 1.8 billion barrels of oil, respectively, with well depths typically ranging

from 4,500 to 7,500 feet. The company's properties in the CBP are positioned for

infill and step-out drilling to target these reservoirs in several of the major CBP

fields, such as the Fuhrman-Mascho, Goldsmith, Fullerton, Tex-Mex, Brooklaw,

and Robertson fields.

Exhibit 43: SD—Permian Basin Operations Details (Central

Basin Platform)


Permian Trust

In August 2011, SD sold 34.5 million common units of the Permian Trust to the public for

net proceeds of ~$580.6 million and retained 4.875 million common units and

13.125 million subordinated units.

The Trust will have royalty interests in 517 PD wells and 888 development wells to be

drilled by December 31, 2016. The royalty interests entitle the Trust to receive 80% of the

proceeds (after deducting postproduction costs and production taxes) from the producing

wells and 70% from the development wells. The Area of Mutual Interest (AMI) extends

across 15.9K net acres of the Grayburg/San Andres formation in the Permian basin in

Andrews county. (See Exhibit 44.)

As of September 2012, SD owned 30.5% of the Permian Trust and had drilled 415

development wells, with 473 wells (~53%) remaining under its obligations. The maximum

recoverable amount under the lien for the Permian Trust was $156.9 million.

In 2013, SD expects to spend ~$140 million on drilling 220 Permian wells associated with

the Trust. The company aims to finish the drilling obligation in two years.

12 February 2013


SandRidge estimates that ~$500 million is required to fulfill its drilling obligations for the

three royalty trusts. Capex spent on the underlying properties in the royalty trusts is

included in the company’s reported E&P capex and guidance.

Exhibit 44: SD Permian Trust (PER)—Area of Mutual

Interest


Sale of Permian Acreage

On December 19, 2012, Sandridge announced to sell all of its Permian acreage, except

for the area subject to the Permian Trust, to Sheridan Production for cash proceeds of

$2.6 billion. The proceeds will be used to pay down debt and fund investments in the

Mississippian. The transaction is expected to close in the first quarter of 2013. The

properties produced 24.5 MBoe/d, with 67% oil, 15% NGLs, and 18% natural gas. The

transaction implies a valuation of $106K per flowing barrel. After the sale, SD is still

obligated to fulfill its drilling commitment under the Permian Trust, which we estimate to be

approximately $300 million.

West Texas Overthrust

SD holds interests in ~544K gross (419K net) leasehold acres in the West Texas

Overthrust (WTO) as of December 31, 2011. Associated proved reserves as of

December 31, 2011 were 102.5 MMBoe, 45% of which were proved developed reserves.

The company's interests in the WTO as of December 31, 2011, included 880 gross

(745.4 net) producing wells with an average working interest of 95.3%.

SD has drilled and developed natural gas in the WTO since 1986. This area is located in

Pecos and Terrell counties in west Texas and is associated with the Marathon-Ouachita

fold and thrust belt that extends east-northeast across the United States into the

Appalachian Mountain Region. The primary reservoir rocks in the WTO range in depth

12 February 2013


from 2,000 to 17,000 feet and range in geologic age from the Permian to the Devonian.

The imbricate stacking of these conventional gas-prone reservoirs provides for multipay

exploration and development opportunities. Despite these opportunities, the WTO has

historically been under-explored. The high CO2 content of the natural gas, lack of

infrastructure in the region, and historical limitations of conventional subsurface geological

and geophysical methods have combined to discourage exploration of the area.

In order to facilitate expansion of CO2 treating capacity in the WTO, SD constructed a

CO2 treatment plant in Pecos County, Texas, and associated compression and pipeline

facilities pursuant to an agreement with Occidental Petroleum Corporation (OXY). Under

the terms of the agreement, OXY paid SD a minimum of 100% of the contract price, or

$800 MM, plus any subsequently agreed-upon revisions, through periodic cost

reimbursements based upon the percentage of the project completed by the company.

Pursuant to a 30-year treating agreement executed simultaneously with the construction

agreement to build the Century Plant, OXY was expected to separate CO2 from SD’s

delivered natural gas production volumes. Under this agreement, SD is required to deliver

certain CO2 volumes annually to OXY and is on the hook for under-delivery of volumes,

which is now the case, as SD is no longer committing capital to the WTO. In 2012, SD

accrued an approximate $20 MM liability related to its shortfall in meeting its delivery

obligations. Going forward, this obligation is expected to increase to $30 to $40 MM per

annum.

Gulf of Mexico/Gulf Coast

As of December 31, 2011, SD owned 57K gross (28 K net) acres in state and federal

waters off the coasts of Texas and Louisiana. As of December 31, 2011, the company’s

estimated net proved reserves in the Gulf of Mexico were 6.1 MMBoe.

As of December 31, 2011, SD had ~66K gross (34 K net) acres in the Gulf Coast area. As

of December 31, 2011, the Company's estimated net proved reserves in the Gulf Coast

area were 5.8 MMBoe.

SD acquired Dynamic Offshore Resources, LLC (Dynamic) for aggregate consideration of

approximately $680 MM in cash and ~74 million shares of SD common stock in April 2012.

Dynamic had 62.5 MMBoe of proven reserves, 80% of which were proved developed

reserves. Approximately 50% of Dynamic’s current production and proved reserves

consists of oil.

Drilling and Oilfield Services (OFS)

The drilling and related oil field services that the company provides to its exploration and

production business and to third parties are consolidated under its drilling and oilfield

services subsidiary, Lariat Services. As of September 30, 2012, Lariat owned 31 drilling

rigs. Exhibit 45 presents a summary of the company’s rigs as of September 30, 2012, and

2011.

Exhibit 45: SD: Lariat Services, Inc. Drilling Fleet

Rigs 9/30/2012 9/30/2011

Working for SD 21 20

Working for 3rd Parties 9 11

Total Operational 30 31

Non-operational 1 0

Total Rigs 31 31


SD’s oil field services business conducts operations that, together with its drilling services,

complement its exploration and production business. Oil field services include providing

12 February 2013


pulling units, trucking, rental tools, location and road construction, and roustabout services

to the company as well as to third parties.

Midstream Gas Services

SD provides gathering, compression, and treating services of natural gas in west Texas.

The company’s midstream operations and assets serve its exploration and production

business as well as other oil and natural gas companies. Exhibit 46 and Exhibit 47 set

forth information regarding primary midstream assets as of December 31, 2011:

Exhibit 46: SD, Midstream—Gas Treating Plants

Gas Treating Plants Plant Capacity (MMcf/d) Avg. Utilization 3rd Part Usage

Pike's Peak 85 25% <1%

Grey Ranch 220 26% 6% Source: Company data, Credit Suisse estimates.

Exhibit 47: SD, Midstream—CO2 Compression Facilities

SD CO2 Compression Facilities CO2 Compression Capacity (MMcf/d) Avg. Utilization

Pike's Peak 36.0 29%

Mitchell 26.5 28%

Grey Ranch 64.0 20%

Terrell 28.0 73% Source: Company data, Credit Suisse estimates.

West Texas

SD owns and operates the Pike’s Peak gas treating plant in Pecos county, Texas, which

has the capacity to treat 85 MMcf/d of natural gas for the removal of CO2 from production

in the Piñon Field and nearby areas. The company also owns the Grey Ranch gas treating

plant located in Pecos county and has a 50% interest in the partnership that leases the

plant from it under a lease expiring in 2020. The treating capacity for both the Pike’s Peak

and Grey Ranch plants is dependent upon the quality of natural gas being treated.

SD’s two west Texas gas treating plants remove CO2 from natural gas production and

deliver residue gas into the Atmos Lone Star and Enterprise Energy Services pipelines.

These pipelines are operated on fixed fees based upon throughput of natural gas. In

addition, the company has access of up to 30 MMcf per day of treating capacity at Hoover

Energy Partners’ Mitchell Plant under a long-term fixed fee arrangement.

SD also owns or operates over 1,700 miles of gas gathering pipelines and numerous

dehydration units. Within the Piñon Field, the company operates separate gathering

systems for sweet natural gas and produced natural gas containing high percentages of

CO2. In addition to servicing its own exploration and production business, these assets

also service other oil and natural gas companies.

Other Areas

As of December 31, 2011, SD owned ~50 miles of pipeline in the Mid-Continent area, and

the company owned ~54 miles of pipeline gathering systems and operated over 2,500

horsepower of gas compression in the Gulf Coast area.

Other Services

SD’s CO2 capturing operations are conducted through SandRidge CO2. As of December

31, 2011, SandRidge CO2 owned 240 miles of CO2 pipelines in west Texas, with ~56,000

horsepower of owned and leased CO2 compression available and currently operational.

The captured CO2 is primarily used for tertiary oil recovery operations.

12 February 2013


Management Team Executive Compensation

SD believes that a strong, experienced senior management team is necessary to execute

the company’s business plan. Accordingly, compensation philosophy reflects the

company’s need to attract, retain, and motivate top talent executives.

Exhibit 48: SD’s Compensation Overview

Compensation Element Description and Purpose Market Guidelines

Base Salary Provides a minimum fixed level of cash compensation for

performing day-to-day responsibilities

Competitive with peers

Rewards near-term operational and financial performance

Aligns executive and stockholder interests

Encourages retention

Rewards long-term operational and financial performance

Health, welfare and retirement program and perquisites

Maintains a competitive position in terms of attracting and

retaining executives

Other Benefits and Perquisites Competitive with peers



Cash Bonus Awards

Long-Term Incentives


SD utilizes the following peers as a basis for its executive compensation: ATP Oil & Gas

(ATP), Anadarko Petroleum (APC), Apache (APA), Chesapeake (CHK), Denbury

Resources (DNR), EOG Resources (EOG), Forest Oil (FST), Devon (DVN), Newfield

Exploration (NFX), Noble Energy (NBL), Pioneer (PXD), Plains Exploration & Production

(PXP), Range Resources (RRC), Southwestern (SWN), and Ultra Petroleum (UPL).

Exhibit 49: SD’s Executive and Director Ownership Detail CXO Ownership of Directors and Executive Officers

Name

Shares

Owned

Market

Value ($M)

% of

Total S.O.

Management Team

Tom L. Ward, Chairman & CEO 19,611,344 $119.1 4.72%

Matthew K. Grubb, President & COO 272,514 $1.7 0.07%

James D. Bennett, EVP & CFO 113,923 $0.7 0.03%

Todd N. Tipton, EVP - Exploration 59,342 $0.4 0.01%

Rodney E. Johnson, EVP - Reservoir Engineering 34,591 $0.2 0.01%

Total Management Team 20,091,714 $122.1 4.84%

Directors

Jim J. Brewer 10,373 $0.1 0.00%

Everett R. Dobson 44,662 $0.3 0.01%

William A. Gilliland 1,652,253 $10.0 0.40%

Daniel W. Jordan 1,546,046 $9.4 0.37%

Roy T. Oliver Jr. 1,323,764 $8.0 0.32%

Jeffrey S. Serota - $0.0 0.00%

Total Directors 4,577,098 $27.7 1.10%

Total Executive and Director Shares Owned 24,668,812 $149.8 5.94% Source: Company data.

12 February 2013


Management Team

Tom L. Ward, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Professional Background

Tom L. Ward has been SD’s chairman and CEO since June 2006. Between December

2006 and January 2011, Mr. Ward also served as the company’s president. Before joining

SD, Mr. Ward cofounded Chesapeake Energy (CHK), where he served as president and

COO between 1989 until 2006.

Education

Mr. Ward graduated from the University of Oklahoma with a bachelor of business

administration in petroleum land management. Mr. Ward is a member of the board of

trustees of Anderson University in Anderson, Indiana, and of the economic advisory

council of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.

Matthew K. Grubb, President and Chief Operating Officer


Matthew Grubb was elected as SD’s president in January 2011 and has served as the

company’s COO since June 2007. Mr. Grubb’s previous position in the company was

executive vice president—operations, which he held from August 2006. Between 1995 and

2006, Mr. Grubb was employed by Samson Resources.

Education

Mr. Grubb is a graduate from the Texas A&M University, where he received both his

bachelor of science degree in petroleum engineering in 1986 and his master of science

degree in mechanical engineering in 1988.

James D. Bennett, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


James D. Bennett joined SD in January 2011 as executive vice president and CFO. Before

joining SD, Mr. Bennett was employed by White Deer Energy, where he was a managing

director. Between 2006 and 2009, he served as managing director at GSO Capital

Partners L.P. Mr. Bennett also served on the board of directors of the GP of Cheniere

Energy Partners L.P. and PostRock Energy Corporation.

Education

Mr. Bennett graduated from the Texas Tech University, where he earned his bachelor of

business administration in finance.

Todd N. Tipton, Executive Vice President—Exploration


Todd N. Tipton joined SandRidge in September 2006 as has held the position of executive

vice president—exploration since then. Prior to joining the company, Mr. Tipton was

employed by Devon, where he served as exploration manager of the western division

between 2001 and 2006. Mr. Tipton is also a member of the Rocky Mountain Association

of Geologists and a member of the Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States.

Education

Mr. Tipton graduated from the State University of New York at Buffalo, where he got his

bachelor degree in geology in 1977. He also completed an executive development

program at The Johnson Graduate School of Management at Cornell University.

12 February 2013


Rodney E. Johnson, Executive Vice President—Reservoir Engineering


Rodney E. Johnson currently holds the position of executive vice president—reservoir

engineering. Mr. Johnson joined the company in January 2007 as president of reservoir

engineering. Between October 2003 and December 2006, Mr. Johnson was employed by

Chesapeake, where he served as manager of reservoir engineering.

Education

Mr. Johnson earned his bachelor of science degree in mechanical engineering from the

Wichita State University in 1980.

Exhibit 50: SD Management Compensation Table

Executive Compensation 2009 2010 2011

Salary $1,212,894 $1,500,000 $1,502,596

Bonus 1,350,000 1,500,000 1,523,000

Stock Awards 9,406,250 17,284,585 20,771,971

All Other Compensation 1,772,829 1,471,672 1,463,935

Total Compensation $13,741,973 $21,756,257 $25,261,502

Salary $588,904 $755,770 $900,519

Bonus 675,000 855,000 914,000

Stock Awards 1,671,200 2,127,335 4,672,500

All Other Compensation 170,068 224,454 338,626


Salary NA NA $670,789

Bonus NA NA 710,500

Stock Awards NA NA 6,153,250

All Other Compensation NA NA 204,913

Total Compensation NA NA $7,739,452

Salary $372,443 $401,692 $424,884

Bonus 289,000 304,500 447,500

Stock Awards 448,740 585,015 1,168,125

All Other Compensation $96,972 $105,221 119,904


Salary $351,544 $376,924 $421,039

Bonus 325,000 355,500 447,000

Stock Awards 332,400 425,465 1,168,125

All Other Compensation $96,929 $108,994 123,060


Rodney E. Johnson - EVP of Reservoir Engineering

Tom L. Ward - Chairman, Chief Executive Officer

Matthew K. Grubb - President, Chief Operating Officer

James D. Bennett - EVP, Chief Financial Officer

Todd N. Tripton - EVP of Exploration

Source: FactSet, Company reports.

12 February 2013


Financial Overview Exhibit 51: Financial Summary of SandRidge Energy (SD)

SandRidge Energy (SD)

($ millions, except per share) 2012E 2013E 2014E 2015E

EPS $0.22 -$0.23 -$0.20 -$0.44

CFPS $1.72 $1.38 $1.62 $1.64

Net income $66 -$188 -$171 -$315

Interest expense $299 $265 $263 $305

Effective tax rate -3% 0% 0% 0%

Average fully diluted shares 553 588 588 588

EBITDA $1,118 $1,073 $1,216 $1,269

Depreciation $633 $735 $857 $1,006

EBIT $455 $302 $317 $215

Cash flow from operations $840 $809 $953 $964

Capex* $2,128 $1,750 $1,650 $1,650

Free cash flow from operations ($1,288) ($941) ($697) ($686)

Year-end cash balance $410 $900 $633 $479

Year-end debt $4,300 $3,200 $3,700 $4,300

Year-end net debt $3,890 $2,301 $3,067 $3,822

Net Debt/EBITDA 3.5x 2.1x 2.5x 3.0x

Net Debt/Cap 59% 46% 54% 61%

Production

Oil (MMBbls) 18.0 16.5 17.4 19.4

% growth 52% -8% 5% 12%

% of total 54% 46% 42% 41%

Average realized price $84.77 $93.76 $92.71 $83.74

Natural Gas (Bcf) 93.3 118.3 142.8 166.8

% growth 35% 27% 21% 17%

% of total 46% 54% 58% 59%

Average realized price $2.43 $3.27 $3.74 $3.92

Total (MMBoe) 33.5 36.2 41.2 47.2

% growth 43% 8% 14% 15%

Credit Suisse Commodity Price Outlook

WTI Crude Oil ($ per barrel) $94.14 $102.75 $102.00 $92.00

Brent Crude ($ per barrel) $111.96 $115.00 $110.00 $100.00

US Natural Gas ($ per mcf) $2.80 $3.70 $4.30 $4.50 Source: Company data, Credit Suisse estimates

12 F

eb

ruary

201

3

San

dR

idg

e E

nerg

y, In

c. (S

D)

38

Exhibit 52: SD Income Statement Annuals

2012 2013 2014 2015 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Year Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Year Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Year Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Year

INCOME STATEMENT

REVENUE

Oil and natural gas $1,801.7 $1,814.4 $2,053.2 $2,238.2 $192.5 $584.5 $490.2 $534.5 $1,801.7 $543.0 $394.7 $427.5 $449.3 $1,814.4 $480.4 $501.5 $526.7 $544.6 $2,053.2 $529.4 $550.5 $571.6 $586.6 $2,238.2

Drilling, Midstream & Other 175.8 177.9 192.6 208.4 40.3 48.7 44.5 42.3 175.8 43.2 44.0 44.9 45.8 177.9 46.7 47.7 48.6 49.6 192.6 50.6 51.6 52.6 53.7 208.4

Total Revenue $1,977.5 $1,992.4 $2,245.8 $2,446.7 $232.8 $633.1 $534.7 $576.8 $1,977.5 $586.1 $438.7 $472.4 $495.1 $1,992.4 $527.1 $549.2 $575.3 $594.2 $2,245.8 $580.0 $602.1 $624.2 $640.3 $2,446.7

OPERATING EXPENSES

Lease operating costs $482.1 $561.5 $618.2 $708.7 $83.3 $122.5 $137.0 $139.3 $482.1 $153.1 $128.2 $136.6 $143.6 $561.5 $142.9 $151.1 $159.1 $165.1 $618.2 $166.9 $174.1 $181.2 $186.4 $708.7

Production taxes 54.4 50.8 57.5 62.7 12.3 11.0 13.0 18.2 54.4 15.2 11.1 12.0 12.6 50.8 13.5 14.0 14.7 15.2 57.5 14.8 15.4 16.0 16.4 62.7

Drilling and services 74.0 72.5 82.4 94.5 17.6 19.2 15.7 21.6 74.0 19.8 16.5 17.6 18.5 72.5 19.1 20.1 21.2 22.0 82.4 22.3 23.2 24.2 24.9 94.5

Midstream and marketing 38.5 39.8 45.3 52.0 8.0 8.6 10.7 11.3 38.5 10.9 9.1 9.7 10.2 39.8 10.5 11.1 11.7 12.1 45.3 12.2 12.8 13.3 13.7 52.0

Depreciation, depletion, and amortization 568.8 670.2 783.1 921.3 87.1 139.3 166.1 176.4 568.8 182.8 153.0 163.0 171.4 670.2 181.0 191.4 201.6 209.1 783.1 217.0 226.4 235.6 242.3 921.3

Depreciation, depletion, and amortization (non-E&P) 64.5 65.2 74.2 85.0 14.5 15.3 16.5 18.1 64.5 17.8 14.9 15.9 16.7 65.2 17.1 18.1 19.1 19.8 74.2 20.0 20.9 21.7 22.4 85.0

Asset retirement accretion / asset impairment 29.6 36.2 41.2 47.2 2.6 8.0 9.1 10.0 29.6 9.9 8.3 8.8 9.3 36.2 9.5 10.1 10.6 11.0 41.2 11.1 11.6 12.1 12.4 47.2

General and administrative 207.2 194.3 226.7 259.9 50.3 61.7 46.8 48.4 207.2 49.4 45.5 48.5 51.0 194.3 52.4 55.4 58.3 60.5 226.7 61.2 63.9 66.5 68.3 259.9

Other Operating Expenses / (Income) 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.3 0.4 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

TOTAL EXPENSES $1,522.9 $1,690.5 $1,928.7 $2,231.3 $278.6 $385.9 $415.2 $443.2 $1,522.9 $458.7 $386.5 $412.1 $433.2 $1,690.5 $445.9 $471.4 $496.4 $515.0 $1,928.7 $525.7 $548.3 $570.6 $586.8 $2,231.3

OPERATING INCOME $454.6 $301.8 $317.1 $215.3 -$45.8 $247.3 $119.6 $133.6 $454.6 $127.4 $52.2 $60.3 $61.9 $301.8 $81.2 $77.7 $79.0 $79.2 $317.1 $54.3 $53.8 $53.7 $53.5 $215.3

Interest Expense 299.3 264.7 262.8 304.7 67.0 68.6 81.9 81.9 299.3 81.9 60.9 60.9 60.9 264.7 60.9 60.9 70.5 70.5 262.8 70.5 74.3 78.1 81.9 304.7

Loss/(gain) on derivatives contracts and other income, net -338.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 103.3 -639.5 197.2 0.0 -338.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Pretax Earnings $494.2 $37.1 $54.3 -$89.4 -$216.2 $818.2 -$159.6 $51.7 $494.2 $45.5 -$8.7 -$0.6 $0.9 $37.1 $20.2 $16.8 $8.5 $8.8 $54.3 -$16.1 -$20.4 -$24.4 -$28.4 -$89.4

Income Tax Expense (Benefit) -103.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 -103.7 0.2 0.0 -103.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Note, Effective Tax Rate -3% 0% 0% 0% 0% -13% 0% 0% -3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Production taxes 4% 3% 3% 3% 6% 2% 3% 3% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%

Net Income $597.6 $37.1 $54.3 -$89.4 -$216.2 $921.9 -$159.8 $51.7 $597.6 $45.5 -$8.7 -$0.6 $0.9 $37.1 $20.2 $16.8 $8.5 $8.8 $54.3 -$16.1 -$20.4 -$24.4 -$28.4 -$89.4

Less: Net income from noncontrolling interests 129.0 170.0 170.0 170.0 2.0 99.0 10.7 17.4 129.0 42.5 42.5 42.5 42.5 170.0 42.5 42.5 42.5 42.5 170.0 42.5 42.5 42.5 42.5 170.0

Less: Preferred stock dividends 55.5 55.5 55.5 55.5 13.9 13.9 13.9 13.9 55.5 13.9 13.9 13.9 13.9 55.5 13.9 13.9 13.9 13.9 55.5 13.9 13.9 13.9 13.9 55.5

Net Income To Common $413.1 -$188.4 -$171.2 -$314.9 -$232.1 $809.0 -$184.3 $20.4 $413.1 -$10.9 -$65.1 -$57.0 -$55.5 -$188.4 -$36.1 -$39.6 -$47.9 -$47.6 -$171.2 -$72.5 -$76.8 -$80.8 -$84.8 -$314.9

Special Items/Adjustments 346.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 -239.4 786.0 -200.0 0.0 346.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Adjusted Net Income To Common $66.5 -$188.4 -$171.2 -$314.9 $7.4 $23.0 $15.7 $20.4 $66.5 -$10.9 -$65.1 -$57.0 -$55.5 -$188.4 -$36.1 -$39.6 -$47.9 -$47.6 -$171.2 -$72.5 -$76.8 -$80.8 -$84.8 -$314.9

Reported Earnings Per Share (Basic) $0.90 ($0.38) ($0.34) ($0.63) ($0.58) $1.75 ($0.39) $0.04 $0.90 ($0.02) ($0.13) ($0.11) ($0.11) ($0.38) ($0.07) ($0.08) ($0.10) ($0.10) ($0.34) ($0.15) ($0.15) ($0.16) ($0.17) ($0.63)

Reported Earnings Per Share (Diluted) $0.85 ($0.23) ($0.20) ($0.44) ($0.58) $1.47 ($0.39) $0.06 $0.85 $0.01 ($0.09) ($0.07) ($0.07) ($0.23) ($0.04) ($0.04) ($0.06) ($0.06) ($0.20) ($0.10) ($0.11) ($0.11) ($0.12) ($0.44)

Adjusted Earnings Per Share (Basic) $0.15 ($0.38) ($0.34) ($0.63) $0.02 $0.05 $0.03 $0.04 $0.15 ($0.02) ($0.13) ($0.11) ($0.11) ($0.38) ($0.07) ($0.08) ($0.10) ($0.10) ($0.34) ($0.15) ($0.15) ($0.16) ($0.17) ($0.63)

Adjusted Earnings Per Share (Diluted) $0.22 ($0.23) ($0.20) ($0.44) $0.04 $0.07 $0.05 $0.06 $0.22 $0.01 ($0.09) ($0.07) ($0.07) ($0.23) ($0.04) ($0.04) ($0.06) ($0.06) ($0.20) ($0.10) ($0.11) ($0.11) ($0.12) ($0.44)

EBITDA $1,118 $1,073 $1,216 $1,269 $185 $410 $311 $338 $1,118 $338 $228 $248 $259 $1,073 $289 $297 $310 $319 $1,216 $303 $313 $323 $331 $1,269

Cash Taxes $2 $1 $1 $1 $2.03 $1.34 $1.37 $1.85 $1.65 $1.54 $1.34 $1.36 $1.36 $1.40 $1.41 $1.39 $1.39 $1.39 $1.40 $1.33 $1.33 $1.32 $1.32 $1.33

EBIDA $1,116 $1,072 $1,214 $1,268 $183 $409 $310 $336 $1,116 $336 $227 $247 $258 $1,072 $287 $296 $309 $318 $1,214 $301 $311 $322 $329 $1,268

Cash Flow Per Share (Basic) $2.07 $1.62 $1.91 $1.94 $0.38 $0.58 $0.59 $0.52 $2.07 $0.51 $0.34 $0.38 $0.40 $1.62 $0.46 $0.47 $0.48 $0.50 $1.91 $0.47 $0.48 $0.49 $0.50 $1.94

Cash Flow Per Share (Diluted) $1.72 $1.38 $1.62 $1.64 $0.31 $0.47 $0.50 $0.44 $1.72 $0.44 $0.28 $0.32 $0.34 $1.38 $0.39 $0.40 $0.41 $0.42 $1.62 $0.39 $0.41 $0.42 $0.42 $1.64

Basic shares 457.7 498.0 498.0 498.0 400.6 461.0 476.0 493.0 457.7 498.0 498.0 498.0 498.0 498.0 498.0 498.0 498.0 498.0 498.0 498.0 498.0 498.0 498.0 498.0

Diluted shares 552.6 588.0 588.0 588.0 500.1 560.6 566.6 583.0 552.6 588.0 588.0 588.0 588.0 588.0 588.0 588.0 588.0 588.0 588.0 588.0 588.0 588.0 588.0 588.0

2013E 2014E 2015ESandRidge Energy (SD)

2012E


12 F

eb

ruary

201

3

San

dR

idg

e E

nerg

y, In

c. (S

D)

39

Exhibit 53: SD Cash Flow Statement Annuals


Discretionary Cash Flow Reconciliation ($MM)

CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES

NET INCOME $597.6 $37.1 $54.3 ($89.4) ($216.2) $921.9 ($159.8) $51.7 $597.6 $45.5 ($8.7) ($0.6) $0.9 $37.1 $20.2 $16.8 $8.5 $8.8 $54.3 ($16.1) ($20.4) ($24.4) ($28.4) ($89.4)

Depreciation, depletion, and amortization 633.3 735.4 857.3 1,006.4 101.6 154.6 182.6 194.5 633.3 200.5 167.9 178.9 188.1 735.4 198.1 209.6 220.7 228.9 857.3 237.1 247.3 257.3 264.7 1,006.4

Debt issuance costs amortization 11.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 3.5 4.7 0.0 11.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Unrealized loss on derivative contracts (234.7) 0.0 0.0 0.0 127.8 (583.0) 220.4 0.0 (234.7) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Realized loss on derivative contracts 99.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 120.1 (24.1) 3.3 0.0 99.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Loss (gain) on sale of assets 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.3 0.4 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Deferred income taxes (103.3) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (103.3) 0.0 0.0 (103.3) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Investment income (0.8) 0.0 0.0 0.0 (0.6) 0.5 (0.7) 0.0 (0.8) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Stock Based Compensation / ARO Accretion 43.1 36.2 41.2 47.2 14.0 19.9 (0.7) 10.0 43.1 9.9 8.3 8.8 9.3 36.2 9.5 10.1 10.6 11.0 41.2 11.1 11.6 12.1 12.4 47.2

Other (100.3) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (124.4) 24.1 0.0 (100.3) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Discretionary Cash Flow $949.3 $808.7 $952.8 $964.2 $152.9 $265.8 $274.4 $256.2 $949.3 $255.9 $167.4 $187.1 $198.3 $808.7 $227.9 $236.4 $239.8 $248.7 $952.8 $232.1 $238.4 $245.0 $248.7 $964.2

Changes in working capital ($108.9) $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $78.0 ($79.0) (107.9) 0.0 ($108.9) $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 0.0

Net Cash Provided by Operating Activities $840.5 $808.7 $952.8 $964.2 $230.9 $186.8 $166.5 $256.2 $840.5 255.9 167.4 187.1 198.3 808.7 $227.9 $236.4 $239.8 $248.7 $952.8 $232.1 $238.4 $245.0 $248.7 $964.2

($88.5)

CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES

Capital expenditures for property, plant and equipment ($2,128.4) ($1,750.0) ($1,650.0) ($1,650.0) ($601.8) ($521.2) ($502.7) ($502.7) ($2,128.4) ($437.5) ($437.5) ($437.5) ($437.5) ($1,750.0) ($412.5) ($412.5) ($412.5) ($412.5) (1,650.0) ($412.5) ($412.5) ($412.5) ($412.5) (1,650.0)

Acquisition of assets (837.0) 0.0 0.0 0.0 (10.5) (751.1) (75.4) 0.0 (837.0) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Proceeds from asset sales 422.2 2,600.0 0.0 0.0 269.0 151.9 1.3 0.0 422.2 0.0 2,600.0 0.0 0.0 2,600.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Net Cash Provided by Investing Activities ($2,543.3) $850.0 ($1,650.0) ($1,650.0) ($343.3) ($1,120.4) ($576.8) ($502.7) ($2,543.3) ($437.5) $2,162.5 ($437.5) ($437.5) $850.0 ($412.5) ($412.5) ($412.5) ($412.5) ($1,650.0) ($412.5) ($412.5) ($412.5) ($412.5) ($1,650.0)

CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES

Proceeds from borrowings $1,850.3 $0.0 $500.0 $600.0 $0.0 750.0 1,100.3 0.0 $1,850.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 500.0 0.0 500.0 0.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 600.0

Repayments of borrowings (366.0) (1,100.0) 0.0 0.0 (0.3) (15.8) (350.0) 0.0 (366.0) 0.0 (1,100.0) 0.0 0.0 (1,100.0) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Premium on debt redemption (0.8) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (0.8) 0.0 (0.8) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Debt issuance costs (48.2) 0.0 0.0 0.0 (7.2) (20.1) (20.9) 0.0 (48.2) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Dividends paid - preferred (62.3) (69.0) (69.0) (69.0) (17.3) (10.5) (17.3) (17.3) (62.3) (17.3) (17.3) (17.3) (17.3) (69.0) (17.3) (17.3) (17.3) (17.3) (69.0) (17.3) (17.3) (17.3) (17.3) (69.0)

Purchase of treasury stock (12.8) 0.0 0.0 0.0 (7.1) (0.8) (4.8) 0.0 (12.8) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Other 544.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 64.5 524.0 (43.6) 0.0 544.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Net Cash Provided by Financing Activities $1,905.1 ($1,169.0) $431.0 $531.0 $32.6 $1,226.8 $662.9 ($17.3) $1,905.1 ($17.3) ($1,117.3) ($17.3) ($17.3) ($1,169.0) ($17.3) ($17.3) $482.7 ($17.3) $431.0 ($17.3) $182.7 $182.7 $182.7 $531.0

Net (decrease) Increase in Cash and Cash Equivalents $202.3 $489.7 ($266.2) ($154.8) ($79.8) $293.2 $252.6 ($263.7) $202.3 ($198.9) $1,212.6 ($267.6) ($256.5) $489.7 ($201.9) ($193.3) $310.0 ($181.0) ($266.2) ($197.7) $8.7 $15.2 $19.0 ($154.8)

Cash and equivalents, beginning of period $207.7 $409.9 $899.6 $633.3 $207.7 $127.8 $421.1 $673.7 $207.7 $409.9 $211.1 $1,423.7 $1,156.1 $409.9 $899.6 $697.7 $504.4 $814.4 $899.6 $633.3 $435.6 $444.3 $459.6 $633.3

Cash and equivalents, end of period $409.9 $899.6 $633.3 $478.5 $127.8 $421.1 $673.7 $409.9 $409.9 $211.1 $1,423.7 $1,156.1 $899.6 $899.6 $697.7 $504.4 $814.4 $633.3 $633.3 $435.6 $444.3 $459.6 $478.5 $478.5


2012E


12 F

eb

ruary

201

3

San

dR

idg

e E

nerg

y, In

c. (S

D)

40

Exhibit 54: SD Production Forecast Annuals


Production Volumes - Daily

Oil (Mbbl/d)

United States 49.1 45.3 47.7 53.2 37.7 50.1 53.7 54.8 49.1 56.8 39.4 41.4 43.4 45.3 45.2 46.9 48.5 50.0 47.7 51.4 52.6 53.9 55.1 53.2

Total Oil (Mbbl/d) 49.1 45.3 47.7 53.2 37.7 50.1 53.7 54.8 49.1 56.8 39.4 41.4 43.4 45.3 45.2 46.9 48.5 50.0 47.7 51.4 52.6 53.9 55.1 53.2

Natural Gas (MMcf/d)

United States 254.9 324.2 391.3 457.0 173.0 240.7 295.5 310.3 254.9 317.8 308.8 326.3 343.8 324.2 363.8 382.8 400.8 417.8 391.3 433.8 449.8 464.8 479.8 457.0

Total Natural Gas (MMcf/d) 254.9 324.2 391.3 457.0 173.0 240.7 295.5 310.3 254.9 317.8 308.8 326.3 343.8 324.2 363.8 382.8 400.8 417.8 391.3 433.8 449.8 464.8 479.8 457.0

34% 27% 21% 17%

Total Production (Mboe/d) 91.5 99.3 112.9 129.4 66.5 90.2 103.0 106.5 91.5 109.8 90.9 95.8 100.7 99.3 105.8 110.7 115.3 119.6 112.9 123.7 127.6 131.3 135.1 129.4

Production Volumes - Summary

Oil (MMbbls)

United States 18.0 16.5 17.4 19.4 3.4 4.6 4.9 5.0 18.0 5.1 3.6 3.8 4.0 16.5 4.1 4.3 4.5 4.6 17.4 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.1 19.4

Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Oil (MMbbls) 18.0 16.5 17.4 19.4 3.4 4.6 4.9 5.0 18.0 5.1 3.6 3.8 4.0 16.5 4.1 4.3 4.5 4.6 17.4 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.1 19.4

Natural Gas Liquids (Mbbl/d)

United States 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Natural Gas Liquids (MMbbls) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Natural Gas (Bcf)

United States 93.3 118.3 142.8 166.8 15.7 21.9 27.2 28.5 93.3 28.6 28.1 30.0 31.6 118.3 32.7 34.8 36.9 38.4 142.8 39.0 40.9 42.8 44.1 166.8

Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Natural Gas (Bcf) 93.3 118.3 142.8 166.8 15.7 21.9 27.2 28.5 93.3 28.6 28.1 30.0 31.6 118.3 32.7 34.8 36.9 38.4 142.8 39.0 40.9 42.8 44.1 166.8

Total Production (MMboe)

United States 33.5 36.2 41.2 47.2 6.1 8.2 9.5 9.8 33.5 9.9 8.3 8.8 9.3 36.2 9.5 10.1 10.6 11.0 41.2 11.1 11.6 12.1 12.4 47.2

Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Production (MMboe) 33.5 36.2 41.2 47.2 6.1 8.2 9.5 9.8 33.5 9.9 8.3 8.8 9.3 36.2 9.5 10.1 10.6 11.0 41.2 11.1 11.6 12.1 12.4 47.2


2012E


12 F

eb

ruary

201

3

San

dR

idg

e E

nerg

y, In

c. (S

D)

41

Exhibit 55: SD Balance Sheet

3/31/2012 6/30/2012 9/30/2012 12/31/2012 3/31/2013 6/30/2013 9/30/2013 12/31/2013 3/31/2014 6/30/2014 9/30/2014 12/31/2014 3/31/2015 6/30/2015 9/30/2015 12/31/2015

ASSETS

Cash and short term investments $127.8 $421.1 $673.7 $409.9 $211.1 $1,423.7 $1,156.1 $899.6 $697.7 $504.4 $814.4 $633.3 $435.6 $444.3 $459.6 $478.5

Accounts receivable, net 240.6 288.3 382.1 382.1 382.1 382.1 382.1 382.1 382.1 382.1 382.1 382.1 382.1 382.1 382.1 382.1

Other current assets 51.0 271.4 173.4 163.4 153.5 145.3 136.5 127.2 117.7 107.6 97.0 86.0 74.8 63.2 51.1 38.7

Total Current Assets $419.4 $980.8 $1,229.2 $955.5 $746.7 $1,951.1 $1,674.6 $1,408.9 $1,197.5 $994.1 $1,293.5 $1,101.4 $892.6 $889.7 $892.8 $899.4

Property, plant & equipment, net 5,034.1 7,133.8 8,194.0 8,502.1 8,739.1 6,408.7 6,667.3 6,916.7 7,131.1 7,334.1 7,525.9 7,709.5 7,884.9 8,050.1 8,205.3 8,353.1

Goodwill and intangibles 235.4 235.4 235.4 235.4 235.4 235.4 235.4 235.4 235.4 235.4 235.4 235.4 235.4 235.4 235.4 235.4

Other non-current assets 689.1 828.6 185.7 185.7 185.7 185.7 185.7 185.7 185.7 185.7 185.7 185.7 185.7 185.7 185.7 185.7

Total Assets $6,378.1 $9,178.5 $9,844.2 $9,878.7 $9,906.9 $8,780.9 $8,763.1 $8,746.7 $8,749.7 $8,749.2 $9,240.5 $9,232.0 $9,198.6 $9,360.9 $9,519.2 $9,673.5

LIABILITIES

Accounts payable $601.8 $669.4 $779.2 $779.2 $779.2 $779.2 $779.2 $779.2 $779.2 $779.2 $779.2 $779.2 $779.2 $779.2 $779.2 $779.2

Current portion of long-term debt 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Other current liabilities 164.7 154.1 135.5 135.5 135.5 135.5 135.5 135.5 135.5 135.5 135.5 135.5 135.5 135.5 135.5 135.5

Total Current Liabilities $767.5 $823.4 $914.7 $914.7 $914.7 $914.7 $914.7 $914.7 $914.7 $914.7 $914.7 $914.7 $914.7 $914.7 $914.7 $914.7

Long-term debt 2,813.5 3,549.4 4,300.4 4,300.4 4,300.4 3,200.4 3,200.4 3,200.4 3,200.4 3,200.4 3,700.4 3,700.4 3,700.4 3,900.4 4,100.4 4,300.4

Other non-current liabilities 406.0 383.6 424.0 424.0 424.0 424.0 424.0 424.0 424.0 424.0 424.0 424.0 424.0 424.0 424.0 424.0

Total Liabilities $3,987.0 $4,756.5 $5,639.2 $5,639.2 $5,639.2 $4,539.2 $4,539.2 $4,539.2 $4,539.2 $4,539.2 $5,039.2 $5,039.2 $5,039.2 $5,239.2 $5,439.2 $5,639.2

Working capital ($348.1) $157.4 $314.4 $40.7 ($168.0) $1,036.3 $759.9 $494.1 $282.7 $79.3 $378.7 $186.7 ($22.2) ($25.1) ($21.9) ($15.4)

SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY

Common stock and paid-in capital $4,626.3 $5,195.7 $5,202.5 $5,185.2 $5,168.0 $5,150.7 $5,133.4 $5,116.2 $5,098.9 $5,081.6 $5,064.4 $5,047.1 $5,029.9 $5,012.6 $4,995.3 $4,978.1

Retained earnings, net (3,169.2) (2,360.2) (2,544.5) (2,492.8) (2,447.3) (2,456.0) (2,456.6) (2,455.7) (2,435.5) (2,418.7) (2,410.2) (2,401.4) (2,417.5) (2,438.0) (2,462.4) (2,490.8)

Total Stockholders' Equity $1,457.2 $2,835.5 $2,658.0 $2,692.5 $2,720.7 $2,694.7 $2,676.8 $2,660.5 $2,663.4 $2,663.0 $2,654.2 $2,645.7 $2,612.3 $2,574.6 $2,532.9 $2,487.3

Non-controlling interests 933.9 1,586.6 1,547.0 1,547.0 1,547.0 1,547.0 1,547.0 1,547.0 1,547.0 1,547.0 1,547.0 1,547.0 1,547.0 1,547.0 1,547.0 1,547.0

Total Equity $2,391.1 $4,422.1 $4,205.0 $4,239.5 $4,267.7 $4,241.7 $4,223.8 $4,207.5 $4,210.5 $4,210.0 $4,201.2 $4,192.7 $4,159.4 $4,121.6 $4,080.0 $4,034.3

Total Liabilities and Equity $6,378.1 $9,178.5 $9,844.2 $9,878.7 $9,906.9 $8,780.9 $8,763.1 $8,746.7 $8,749.7 $8,749.2 $9,240.5 $9,232.0 $9,198.6 $9,360.9 $9,519.2 $9,673.5

SandRidge Energy (SD)


12 February 2013


Valuation and Historical Performance We value SandRidge Energy (SD) using a number of metrics that we believe reflect the

underlying potential of the shares over the coming 12 to 18 months. Our valuation

methodology includes the following:

■ Based on sector outlook, determine whether industry conditions will support trough,

average, or peak multiples for SD.

■ Assess how the company is valued on net asset value (NAV), the primary valuation

tool for the group, and relative to peers under our value-added returns framework.

■ Employ traditional multiple analyses on EPS, cash flow, and EBITDA to compare

the current valuation to history and relative valuation based on earnings, cash flow,

and EBIDA (EBITDA less cash taxes).

■ Review and assess SD’s historical performance relative to the peer group.

■ Supplement our traditional valuation methods with Credit Suisse’s HOLT® cash

flow return on investment (CFROI®) framework.

From our analysis, we believe that a Neutral rating on SD is justified, given limited upside

potential to valuation and its stretched balance sheet. Our target price of $6.30 assumes

that the stock trades at 70% of our NAV estimate of $9 per share and 6.0 times our 2013E

EBIDA estimate.

Because E&P stocks are universally affected by the oil and gas cycle, they tend to exhibit

similar trading patterns, and regardless of sector growth opportunities, it is difficult to move

against the tide. As shown in Exhibit 56, SD performed in-line with the EPX index from its

IPO until mid-2008, but it has significantly underperformed the EPX thereafter, following

the gas price collapse and continued outspending of its cash flows.

Exhibit 56: SD’s Historical Price Performance vs. Peers

Source: Bloomberg.

12 February 2013


Group multiples have considerably fluctuated at different stages, primarily as a result of

commodity price expectations of producers that cannot change production volumes

materially over the near term. Valuations have historically peaked and troughed coincident

with this price cycle. Exhibit 57 displays SD’s historical EV/BOE trading ranges versus

commodity price (weighted average price of oil, gas, and NGLs) per BOE in 2008-2011.

Exhibit 57: SD’s Historical EV/BOE Trading Ranges vs. Commodity Prices/BOE

SD Historical EV/BOE Trading Range (incl. future development costs)

$0.00

$10.00

$20.00

$30.00

$40.00

$50.00

$60.00

$70.00

$0.00

$10.00

$20.00

$30.00

$40.00

$50.00

$60.00

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

Co

mm

od

ity P

ric

es

pe

r B

OE

EV

/Bo

e

Current EV/BOE

Source: Company reserve and Bloomberg pricing data.

Exhibit 58 illustrates Credit Suisse’s oil and gas price forecasts. While we acknowledge

the potential for commodity price volatility, we believe that customer cash flows are poised

to move higher in 2013 and 2014, driven by tightening WTI spreads relative to Brent and a

modest improvement in natural gas price fundamentals.

Exhibit 58: Credit Suisse Commodity Oil and Gas Price Outlook

2012 2013E 2014E 2015E 2016E LT

WTI Crude ($/Bbl) $94.14 $102.75 $102.00 $92.00 $82.00 $82.00

Brent ($/Bbl) $111.96 $115.00 $110.00 $100.00 $90.00 $90.00

US Natural Gas ($/MMBtu) $2.80 $3.70 $4.30 $4.50 $4.50 $4.50 Source: Credit Suisse estimates.

Valuation

One of the shortcomings of traditional multiple analyses on earnings or cash flow-based

measures for the E&P industry is the potential distortion of trading ranges at cyclical

extremes. At the peaks, analysis can be biased by the it’s different this time syndrome,

while at the troughs, most E&P companies fail to generate meaningful (if any) earnings or

cash flow, making historical or cross-company comparisons difficult. In addition, EPS can

be skewed by noncash ceiling test write-downs associated with oil and gas prices that

perversely tend to inflate earnings by understating DD&A. Finally, the analysis does not

account for noncash producing assets, such as undeveloped or probable proved reserves.

We employ an asset-based valuation approach to this capital-intensive sector to determine

current market sentiment of a company. Asset-based valuation tends to be more reliable

at extremes, providing a gauge for determining if you are buying assets cheap or if

valuations are stretched. Our preferred asset metric for evaluating E&P companies is net

asset value (NAV), which normalizes for variations in reserve life, future capital

12 February 2013


requirements, and near- and long-term growth rates versus peers. Our NAV methodology

is based on the following:

■ We first estimate the value of a company’s proved developed (PD) reserves using

the audited reserve figures provided in its 10-K. The cash inflows from these

reserves are driven by our decline curve and commodity price estimates. From

these estimated proved developed revenues (estimated future production per our

decline curve times our commodity price forecast), we back out estimated

production costs (lease operating, gathering, and production taxes) as well as cash

income taxes. We apply a 10% discount rate to our estimated cash flow stream to

arrive at a present value for proved reserves.

■ Outside of proved developed reserves, value to unbooked reserves is

conservatively awarded based on the quantity of unbooked reserves and proved

undeveloped reserves (PUDs) a company can convert to proved developed over a

five-year period. We consider the funding and infrastructure requirements

necessary to execute this drilling plan, including an assessment of what the

company can reasonably achieve over this time frame, given balance sheet quality,

as well as anticipated cash flows based on our commodity price/production

forecasts.

■ Our calculated onshore and offshore field NAVs are then compared against recent

valuation markers, such as acreage deals or valuations of public companies, which

serve as reasonableness checks.

■ We give fair market value for non-E&P and midstream assets and back out balance

sheet liabilities to arrive at our NAV estimate. We generally do not give value for

exploration potential above the value of acquired leasehold.

Using our methodology, as highlighted, we calculate a net asset value of $9.00 per share

for SandRidge Energy.

Exhibit 59: NAV Component Breakdown (per Share)

SD Net Asset Value

$7.40

$4.80 $0.60 $3.90

$9.00

$0

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

$14

$13 per share in assets


E&P stocks exhibit similar trading patterns in the cycle, but there are opportunities to

exploit relative valuation gaps and differential performance at various stages. One of our

most effective tools is our returns-based framework, which suggests that value is not

arbitrarily assigned, with differential returns driving differential valuation.

12 February 2013


While investment success in any industry should eventually be demonstrated by tangible

returns or earnings, E&P stocks have traded more consistently on cash flow than

earnings. This is a function of the cyclical and capital-intensive nature of the business.

Earnings can be influenced by accounting choices, acquisition activity (i.e., purchase

versus pooling accounting), and asset write-offs, which have been commonplace owing to

extreme fluctuations of asset values in the oil and gas cycle. We have found that cash flow

measures tend to be better indicators for potential share price valuation.

Exhibit 60 highlights SD’s historical trading range on one-year price to cash flow per share

(CFPS). On average, the stock has traded at around 6.0 times cash flow, with multiples

ranging from a peak of around 15 times in mid-2008 to below 3.0 times in late 2008 during

the global financial crisis. Since increasing from the trough in 2009, SD has generally

traded at below average multiples (except for a brief period in 2011) until recently.

Currently, the shares are trading at approximately 6 times the consensus cash flow

multiple.

Exhibit 60: SD Historical Price-to-Cash Flow Ratio

SD Price-to-Cash Flow Ratio (1YR FWD)

0.0x

4.0x

8.0x

12.0x

16.0x

20.0x

Jan

-08

Ap

r-08

Ju

l-08

Oct-

08

Jan

-09

Ap

r-09

Ju

l-09

Oct-

09

Jan

-10

Ap

r-10

Ju

l-10

Oct-

10

Jan

-11

Ap

r-11

Ju

l-11

Oct-

11

Jan

-12

Ap

r-12

Ju

l-12

Oct-

12

Jan

-13

5 Yr Average Standard Deviation

Source: Bloomberg and FactSet consensus.

Exhibit 61 and Exhibit 62 illustrate SD’s trading range of enterprise value-to-EBITDA on a

one- and two-year basis. On a one-year basis, the stock has traded around an average

EV/EBITDA multiple of 7.0 times, with multiples ranging from a peak of 12.5 times in early

2008 to less than 4.6 times in early 2010. Since increasing from the trough in the second

half of 2010, SD has traded mostly within the 5.0 to 8.5 EV/EBITDA multiple band, and it

now trades above 8.0 times the current consensus 2013 EBITDA estimate. On a two-year

basis, the stock is trading one standard deviation above average at 8.0 times 2014

EBITDA estimates.

12 February 2013


Exhibit 61: SD Historical EV-to-(One-Year-Forward)

EBITDA Multiples

Exhibit 62: SD Historical EV-to-(Two-Year-Forward)

EBITDA Ratios

SD EV-to-EBITDA (1YR FWD)

0.0x

4.0x

8.0x

12.0x

16.0x

Jan

-08

Ju

l-08

Jan

-09

Ju

l-09

Jan

-10

Ju

l-10

Jan

-11

Ju

l-11

Jan

-12

Ju

l-12

Jan

-13


SD EV-to-EBITDA (2YR FWD)

0.0x

2.0x

4.0x

6.0x

8.0x

10.0x

12.0x

Jan

-08

Ju

n-0

8

No

v-0

8

Ap

r-09

Sep

-09

Feb

-10

Ju

l-10

Dec-1

0

May-1

1

Oct-

11

Mar-

12

Au

g-1

2

Jan

-13


Source: Bloomberg. Source: Bloomberg.

Exhibit 63 displays trading metrics for SD using traditional multiple analysis, including

price-to-earnings, price-to-cash flow, and enterprise value-to-EBITDA, on a one-year

forward basis using consensus forecasts. The stock has historically traded within a broad

range between 9.4 and 46.2 times earnings, 7.0 and 15.1 times cash flow, and 4.6 and

12.5 times EBITDA. SD is currently trading above its five-year range of EV/EBITDA

multiple at 8.0 times.

Exhibit 63: SD Current vs. Historical Trading Multiples vs. Peers

High Low Average

P/E NA 46.2x 9.4x 22.6x

Peers 20.3x 30.9x 10.7x 19.0x

P/CF 6.3x 15.1x 7.0x 12.3x

Peers 5.4x 9.4x 4.2x 6.8x

EV/EBITDA 8.0x 12.5x 4.6x 6.8x

Peers 6.9x 9.0x 4.0x 6.1x

CurrentPrior-Cycle

Multiple


Historical Performance

We have historically viewed investing in E&P stocks as a group call using the expected

changes in the spending cycle as a guide for investment decisions. Within each cycle,

there is room for differentiated performance; however, we maintain that getting the cycle

right is the key to investing in E&Ps. E&P stocks typically move in anticipation of improving

or declining fundamentals, so investment decisions should be made in advance of

changes in commodity price or net asset value expectations in order to maximize gains or

minimize losses.

Exhibit 64 shows the relative performance of E&P stocks versus the XNG on a quarterly

basis since 1997.

12 February 2013


Exhibit 64: XNG Index Relative Performance 1997 – 2012

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Year

1997 (14.19) (12.07) 7.66 (11.40) (34.66)

1998 (11.03) (12.21) (12.16) (32.33) (62.85)

1999 2.81 17.98 2.82 (25.25) (4.35)

2000 28.17 19.86 15.87 25.86 115.61

2001 1.64 (15.88) (0.33) (7.08) (16.81)

2002 4.50 (3.67) (3.15) 7.14 1.99

2003 19.19 1.25 (3.43) 1.56 23.74

2004 0.96 7.73 11.98 (0.43) 23.42

2005 15.13 6.84 19.33 (9.29) 34.08

2006 (3.57) 7.06 (6.97) 1.32 (2.45)

2007 6.78 0.93 1.34 14.11 26.03

2008 15.39 27.14 (23.72) (3.13) 3.95

2009 3.68 4.50 5.69 2.64 20.27

2010 (5.09) 1.40 (0.84) 4.10 (0.58)

2011 8.65 (1.87) (3.76) 3.90 5.07

2012 (9.89) (0.52) 1.44 (1.93) (11.21)

Outperformed 11 10 8 8 9

Underperformed 5 6 8 8 7

XNG Relative Performance by Quarter

Source: Bloomberg.

Exhibit 65 shows SD’s performance relative to the market since 2008.

Exhibit 65: SD’s Relative Performance 2008 – 2012

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Year

2008 19.09 68.18 (60.77) (46.06) (44.36)

2009 18.82 14.07 37.13 (32.73) 29.88

2010 (23.22) (12.42) (13.29) 18.67 (35.16)

2011 69.44 (16.33) (33.51) 35.61 11.48

2012 (16.04) (11.27) (1.50) (7.96) (35.59)

Outperformed 3 2 1 2 2

Underperformed 2 3 4 3 3

SD Relative Performance by Quarter

Source: Bloomberg.

12 February 2013


HOLT® Framework

We have included in our analysis of SandRidge Energy an assessment of the company

using Credit Suisse HOLT®. This tool, which is premised on the belief that a firm’s market

value is determined by its creation or destruction of economic wealth, is a type of

discounted cash flow analysis that uses cash flow returns on investment (CFROI®) as its

primary gauge of corporate performance. While the commodity cycle and capital intensity

of this sector make this form of valuation somewhat problematic, we believe that a

DCF-type analysis can help gauge embedded expectations and is a useful supplement to

traditional valuation metrics.

In Exhibit 66, we present embedded expectations for SD through Credit Suisse’s HOLT

relative wealth chart. The intention of this analysis is to highlight changes in two drivers of

economic value: economic returns (cash flow returns on investments, or CFROIs) and

reinvestments rates, to better understand stock price movements throughout history. We

conclude the following from SD’s HOLT relative wealth chart:

■ SD’s market-implied CFROI has historically fluctuated between 6% and slightly

less than 0%. Since 2008, SD has generated lower cash flow returns than its cost

of capital and will continue the trend until 2015, assuming the same cost of capital

as the current level going forward. (See chart at the top left of Exhibit 66.)

■ SD has demonstrated strong asset growth in the past, reflecting the significant

number of acquisitions since the company’s 2007 IPO. (See second chart on the

left of Exhibit 66.)

■ SD’s asset turns, calculated by dividing sales with assets, have generally trended

within the range of 10% to 20%. (See chart at the bottom right of Exhibit 66.)

Exhibit 66: SD Relative Wealth Chart

Source: Company data, Credit Suisse HOLT.

Exhibit 67 illustrates SD’s warranted value in HOLT® through time. The green line on the

chart represents HOLT warranted values, the bars show price ranges, and the circle

shows the closing price for a given year. The chart indicates that the HOLT® model

generally trends with actual prices but historically has been more pessimistic when

12 February 2013


estimating the intrinsic value relative to the subsequent actual price. Currently, the model

suggests significant downside from the current valuation range.

Exhibit 67: HOLT Warranted Price vs. Historical Price Range


Exhibit 68 shows SD’s consensus CFROI levels (pink bars) that are based on sell-side

analysts’ estimates in comparison to market-implied CFROI levels (green dots). Since

2011, market-implied expectations for the company’s CFROIs have been significantly

higher than forecast expectations for SD. Current consensus CFROI level stands at below

1% versus a market-implied level of 6.5%.

Exhibit 68: SD’s Consensus CFROI vs. Market-Implied CFROI


Exhibit 69 shows that SD’s market implied returns have been 6-8% lower than consensus

throughout a large part of its trading history.

12 February 2013


Exhibit 69: Spread between SD’s Market-Implied CFROI and Consensus CFROI


Exhibit 70 and Exhibit 71 show the results of our sensitivity analysis, broken down in a

valuation matrix, which estimates the HOLT warranted value and its premium/discount to

current stock price at various combinations of CFROI and asset growth rates.

Exhibit 70: SD Value Matrix Exhibit 71: Sensitivity Analysis on SD’s Warranted Price

2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10%

2% -0.00 0.93 2.64 4.38 6.16 7.98 9.83 11.72 13.64

4% -0.00 0.74 2.64 4.58 6.57 8.59 10.64 12.74 14.87

6% -0.00 0.57 2.68 4.85 7.06 9.31 11.60 13.94 16.31

8% -0.00 0.40 2.77 5.19 7.65 10.17 12.73 15.33 17.98

10% -0.00 0.26 2.91 5.62 8.38 11.19 14.06 16.97 19.94

12% -0.00 0.14 3.12 6.16 9.25 12.41 15.62 18.89 22.22

14% -0.00 0.07 3.42 6.83 10.31 13.86 17.47 21.15 24.88

SD

2016 A

sset G

row

th

2016 CFROI

2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10%

2% -100% -87% -63% -38% -13% 13% 39% 66% 93%

4% -100% -90% -63% -35% -7% 21% 50% 80% 110%

6% -100% -92% -62% -31% 0% 32% 64% 97% 131%

8% -100% -94% -61% -27% 8% 44% 80% 117% 154%

10% -100% -96% -59% -21% 19% 58% 99% 140% 182%

12% -100% -98% -56% -13% 31% 76% 121% 167% 214%

14% -100% -99% -52% -3% 46% 96% 147% 199% 252%

2016 CFROISD

2016 A

sset

Grow

th

Source: Credit Suisse HOLT. Source: Credit Suisse HOLT.

For more information on the HOLT framework, please see the appendix on page 53.

12 February 2013


Risk Factors Oil and Natural Gas Price Volatility

Oil and natural gas prices historically have been volatile and may continue to be volatile in

the future. Cash flow from operations is highly dependent on the prices that the company

receives for oil and gas. This price volatility also affects the amount of cash flow available

for capital expenditures and the ability to borrow money or raise additional capital. The

prices of oil and gas depend on a variety of factors:

■ Worldwide demand and supply for oil and gas;

■ Ability of the OPEC to agree and maintain oil price and production control;

■ Availability of alternative fuel sources;

■ Worldwide economic and political conditions;

■ Government regulations and taxes; and

■ Weather conditions.

Operational Risks

Drilling may involve unprofitable efforts, not only by dry wells, but from wells that are

productive but do not generate a profit when drilling and other costs are deducted.

Geographic Concentration

A substantial portion of the company’s reserves are located in northwest Oklahoma,

Kansas, and Texas. Any regional events may have a more significant impact on

operations than if the reserves were more diversified geographically.

Risks Associated with Oil Reserves

■ Estimated reserves are based in assumptions that may turn out to be inaccurate

and may affect the value of the company’s assets.

■ Oil and gas reserves will decline unless replaced, and the company may not be

able to develop, find, or acquire additional reserves to replace its current and future

production at acceptable costs

Acquisition of Dynamic Offshore Resources, LLC

If the company completes the pending acquisition of Dynamic, its business and prospects

will be subject to additional risks relating to Dynamic’s offshore operations in the Gulf of

Mexico, and risks relating to offshore operations in general may become more significant.

Stretched Balance Sheet

Following the gas price collapse and consistent outspend of its cash flows, SD’s financial

position has been under duress. The company’s balance sheet metrics appear below

average. Even after factoring in the impact from the anticipated sale of its Permian assets,

SD’s 2013 net-debt-to-EBITDA multiple of 2.1 is meaningfully above the peer group

multiple of 1.4. In addition, SD has one of the lowest interest coverage ratios of its peers,

with an EBITDA/interest expense ratio of 4.1, compared to the group median of 16.0.

Exhibit 25 illustrates SD’s five-year aggregate capex and acquisition program and sources

of funding for its investments in property and drilling. Over this time period, SD has spent

$9.3 billion in capex, including acquisitions. However, operating cash flow and asset sales

have only represented 40% of its spending program, which has necessitated significant

funding from equity (27%), debt instruments (26%), and royalty trusts (7%).

12 February 2013


Based on our forecasts, we expect this level of meaningful outspend to continue

consistent with the company’s historical patterns. In fact, the company is outspending its

cash flow by the most in the peer group.

12 February 2013


Appendix: Credit Suisse HOLT®

Framework The Credit Suisse HOLT

® valuation framework is based on two fundamental principles:

■ The market pays for economic (cash) performance and not accounting performance.

■ The value of a company is determined by its discounted future cash flows over its life

cycle.

The Credit Suisse HOLT methodology uses a proprietary performance measure known as

cash flow return on investment (CFROI®).

The Credit Suisse HOLT valuation framework uses CFROI to estimate future cash flows

and applies a unique notion of life cycle fade to reflect the position of any individual

company on its industrial life cycle.

Exhibit 72: Credit Suisse HOLT Framework

Income Statement

Balance Sheet

EPS, ROE, ROCE

Accounting

Cash Flow Return

on Investment

(CFROI®)

Economic

Performance

Cash

CFROI®

Asset Growth

Life Cycle Fade

Discount Rate

Value

Income Statement

Balance Sheet

EPS, ROE, ROCE

Accounting

Cash Flow Return

on Investment

(CFROI®)

Economic

Performance

Cash

CFROI®

Asset Growth

Life Cycle Fade

Discount Rate

Value


Why use CFROI? Accounting statements often present a distorted view of underlying

economic performance. In order better to define a cash measure, Credit Suisse HOLT’s

economic CFROI corrects for the distortions found in traditional accounting-based

measures of performance by adjusting for inflation, off-balance sheet assets (e.g., leased

property), depreciation, LIFO and FIFO accounting, asset mix, asset holding gains or

losses, asset life, acquisition accounting, deferred taxes, pensions, investments,

revaluations, special reserves, research and development, and others.

As a result, CFROI provides comparability over time, among companies and across

industries and national borders. This proprietary measure focuses on the cash economics

of businesses. Once the economics of the company are understood, we can more

accurately determine value by taking into account expected future cash flows, asset

growth rates, discount rates, and life cycles.

12 February 2013


Exhibit 73: From Accounting to CFROI


Credit Suisse HOLT’s CFROI is calculated in two steps. First, it compares the

inflation-adjusted (current dollar) cash flows available to all capital owners in the company

to the inflation-adjusted (current dollar) gross investment made by those capital owners.

Next, it translates the ratio of gross cash flow to gross investment to an internal rate of

return (IRR) by recognizing the finite economic life of depreciating assets and the residual

value of nondepreciating assets such as land and working capital. The process is identical

to calculating the yield to maturity for a bond. As a percent per year IRR, CFROI is directly

comparable to the return investors expect to receive (i.e., the cost of capital or discount

rate).

Companies can create wealth for shareholders by making the right decisions with respect

to CFROI and asset growth.

As seen in Exhibit 74, wealth is created when companies:

■ Improve CFROI; and

■ Grow assets when CFROI is above the discount rate (positive spread).

12 February 2013


Exhibit 74: Managing for Shareholder Value

Positive

Spread

Neutral

Negative

Spread

1. Increase or

hold CFROI

2. Grow Assets

1. Increase

CFROI

2. Then Grow

1. Increase

CFROI

2. Contract Assets

Cash Flow

Return (%)

(CFROI)

Strategic

Options

Discount Rate

(Cost of Capital)


The Credit Suisse HOLT valuation model, at its foundation, is a type of DCF (discounted

cash flow) model. Among our model’s distinguishing features, along with the CFROI metric,

is the way by which the forecast stream of net cash receipts (NCRs) is generated and the

method by which the firm’s discount rate (DR) is estimated.

From a beginning asset base, key variables that drive the forecast NCR stream are

variables that actually generate cash flows, namely, economic returns (CFROIs),

reinvestment rates (growth), and their expected patterns of change over time owing to

competition (fade). The competitive life cycle is covered on the following page.

The discount rate (DR) is the rate of return investors demand for making their funds

available to the firm. DRs used in our model are real rates, not nominal rates, so they’re

consistent with CFROIs. The DRs are also consistent with other aspects of our model,

since base DRs are mathematically derived from known market values and from NCR

streams consistent within our model. Adjustments (positive or negative) to the base rate

are made for company-specific financial and liquidity risk characteristics.

The result of discounting the NCRs at the market-derived DR is what is referred to as a

warranted value or warranted price. This essentially is the valuation that results (or is

warranted), given the default (or users’ own) assumptions built into the forecast and the

resulting present value of the NCRs plus the value of any nonoperating investments.

12 February 2013


Exhibit 75: Major Components of the Credit Suisse HOLT Valuation Model

Warranted

Price

Net Cash

Receipts

(1+Disc. Rate)t

Growth

CFROI

Fade

Revenue

Growth

Operating

Margins

Asset

Turns

Asset

Base

createsn

=t=1

Country

Base Rate

Size

Differential

Leverage

Differential

Industrial Life Cycle

NPV of Existing Assets

+ NPV of Future Invests

NPV of Net Cash Receipts

+ MV of Non-Op. Assets

Total Enterprise Value

– MV of Debt

Total Equity Value

– Minority Interest

Common Equity Value

÷ Adjusted Shares

Com Equity / Share

Warranted

Price

Net Cash

Receipts

(1+Disc. Rate)t

Growth

CFROI

Fade

Revenue

Growth

Operating

Margins

Asset

Turns

Asset

Base

createsn

=t=1

Country

Base Rate

Size

Differential

Leverage

Differential

Industrial Life Cycle

NPV of Existing Assets

+ NPV of Future Invests

NPV of Net Cash Receipts

+ MV of Non-Op. Assets

Total Enterprise Value

– MV of Debt

Total Equity Value

– Minority Interest

Common Equity Value

÷ Adjusted Shares

Com Equity / Share


In evaluating CFROI and asset growth rates, Credit Suisse HOLT found that, over long

periods of time, companies tend to follow an industrial life cycle. Competition tends to

force firms’ real economic returns toward the corporate sector’s average CFROI.

Exhibit 76: A Company’s Typical Industry Life Cycle

High Premium Premium DiscountPar

Increasing CFROIs &

High Reinvestment

Above-Average

but Fading CFROIs

Below-Average

CFROIs

Average

CFROIs

Growth Fading Mature Sick

CFROI

Discount Rate

(Investor’s Required

Rate of Return)

Value/Cost =

This Research Allows Us to Accurately Analyze the Expected Pattern of Growth and Fade Built into a Company’s Share Price

This Research Allows Us to Accurately Analyze the Expected Pattern of Growth and Fade Built into a Company’s Share Price


Credit Suisse HOLT empirical research has found that, in the United States and other

industrialized economies, these aggregate CFROIs have been averaging about 6%. Thus,

a warranted price or market price can be viewed as implying a firm’s potential future life

cycle of CFROIs and growth rates that will eventually regress to the average aggregate

economic level.

12 February 2013


Exhibit 77: Current Prices Recognize that Performance Fades Under Competitive

Pressures

CFROI Competitive Fade

Toward Corporate Average

Growth Competitive Fade

Toward Corporate Average

2.5%

High Growth Firm

Low Growth Firm

6.0%

High CFROI Firm

Low CFROI Firm

Conclusion:• Competition causes CFROIs and real asset growth rates to regress to the mean (Benchmarks:

CFROIs = 6.0% and Asset Growth = 2.5%)

• Positive and negative surprises vs fade expectations cause significant changes in stock prices


The benefits of using the Credit Suisse HOLT’s framework can be summarized as follows:

■ The framework eliminates accounting distortions, allowing investors to understand

levels and changes in stock prices worldwide.

■ The framework provides comparability over time, among companies, and across

international borders.

Credit Suisse HOLT users benefit from a common language for measuring track records,

making forecasts, and calibrating market expectations.

Companies Mentioned (Price as of 11-Feb-2013)

Apache Corp. (APA.N, $83.81) Anadarko Petroleum Corp. (APC.N, $83.47) Atlas Resources (ARII.JK, Rp1,300) ATP Oil & Gas Corp. (ATPG.OQ^H12, $0.31) Bonanza Creek Energy Inc. (BCEI.N, $34.04) Berry Petroleum Co. (BRY.N, $38.74) Chesapeake Energy Corp. (CHK.N, $20.05) ConocoPhillips (COP.N, $57.59) Comstock Resources, Inc. (CRK.N, $14.19) Carrizo Oil & Gas Inc. (CRZO.OQ, $22.35) Chevron Corp. (CVX.N, $115.64) CONCHO RESOURCES, INC. (CXO.N, $96.52) Denbury Resources (DNR.N, $18.75) Dynamic Offshore (DOR.N, $18.75) Devon Energy Corp (DVN.N, $59.7) Encana Corp. (ECA.N, $19.38) Eagle Energy Tr (EGL_u.TO, C$7.69) ENI (ENI.MI, €17.31) EOG Resources (EOG.N, $133.34) Energy XXI (EXXI.OQ, $32.41) Diamondback Energy, Inc. (FANG.OQ, $21.56) Forest Oil (FST.N, $7.03) Great Portland Estates (GPOR.L, 475.9p) Hess Corporation (HES.N, $66.74) Halcon Resources (HK.N, $7.56) Kodiak Oil & Gas Corp (KOG.N, $9.19) Magnum Hunter Resources Corp. (MHR.N, $3.92)

12 February 2013


Mid States (MIDS.L, 1.625p) Midstates (MPO.N, $8.13) Marathon Oil Corp (MRO.N, $34.31) Noble Energy (NBL.N, $112.75) Occidental Petroleum (OXY.N, $87.21) PDC Energy (PDCE.OQ, $43.86) Plymouth (PLH.AX, A$0.09) PetroQuest (PQ.N, $4.42) Penn Virginia Corp (PVA.N, $4.94) Pioneer Natural Resources (PXD.N, $128.55) Redstone Resourc (RDS.AX, A$0.12) Repsol (REP.MC, €15.72) Rex Energy Corp. (REXX.OQ, $13.32) Red Fork Energy (RFE.AX, A$0.715) Rosetta Resources Inc. (ROSE.OQ, $50.48) Range Resources (RRC.N, $70.68) SandRidge Energy, Inc. (SD.N, $5.73, NEUTRAL[V], TP $6.3) Swift Energy Co. (SFY.N, $15.45) Southwestern Energy Co. (SWN.N, $33.59) Total (TOT.N, $51.23) Whiting Petroleum Corp. (WLL.N, $49.01) ExxonMobil Corporation (XOM.N, $88.28)

Disclosure Appendix

Important Global Disclosures

I, Arun Jayaram, CFA, certify that (1) the views expressed in this report accurately reflect my personal views about all of the subject companies and securities and (2) no part of my compensation was, is or will be directly or indirectly related to the specific recommendations or views expressed in this report.

Price and Rating History for SandRidge Energy, Inc. (SD.N)

SD.N Closing Price Target Price

Date (US$) (US$) Rating

19-Apr-10 6.98 9.00 N

16-May-10 6.88 8.00

10-Aug-10 4.88 7.00

17-Sep-10 4.71 6.00

07-Nov-10 5.16 5.50

15-Dec-10 6.56 6.10

28-Feb-11 10.81 10.00

28-Mar-11 11.82 14.00

04-Oct-11 5.42 NR

* Asterisk signifies initiation or assumption of coverage.

N EU T RA L

N O T RA T ED

The analyst(s) responsible for preparing this research report received Compensation that is based upon various factors including Credit Suisse's total revenues, a portion of which are generated by Credit Suisse's investment banking activities

As of December 10, 2012 Analysts’ stock rating are defined as follows:

Outperform (O) : The stock’s total return is expected to outperform the relevant benchmark*over the next 12 months.

Neutral (N) : The stock’s total return is expected to be in line with the relevant benchmark* over the next 12 months.

Underperform (U) : The stock’s total return is expected to underperform the relevant benchmark* over the next 12 months.

*Relevant benchmark by region: As of 10th December 2012, Japanese ratings are based on a stock’s total return relative to the analyst's coverage universe which consists of all companies covered by the analyst within the relevant sector, with Outperforms representing the most attractiv e, Neutrals the less attractive, and Underperforms the least attractive investment opportunities. As of 2nd October 2012, U.S. and Canadian as well as European ratings are based on a stock’s total return relative to the analyst's coverage universe which consists of all companies covered by the analyst within the relevant sector, with Outperforms representing the most attractive, Neutrals the less attractive, and Underperforms the least attractive investment opportunities. For Latin American and non -Japan Asia stocks, ratings are based on a stock’s total return relative to the average total return of the relevant country or regional be nchmark; Australia, New Zealand are, and prior to 2nd October 2012 U.S. and Canadian ratings were based on (1) a stock’s absolute total return potential to its current share price and (2) the relative attractiveness of a stock’s total return potential within an analyst’s coverage universe. For Australian and New Zealand stocks, 12 -month rolling yield is incorporated in the absolute total return calculation and a 15% and a 7.5% threshold replace the 10-15% level in the Outperform and Underperform stock rating definitions, respectively. The 15% and 7.5% thresholds replace the +10-15% and -10-15% levels in the Neutral stock rating definition, respectively. Prior to 10th December 2012, Japanese ratings were based on a stock’s total return relative to the average total return of the relevant country or regional benchmark.

12 February 2013


Restricted (R) : In certain circumstances, Credit Suisse policy and/or applicable law and regulations preclude certain types of communications, including an investment recommendation, during the course of Credit Suisse's engagement in an investment banking transaction and in certain other circumstances.

Volatility Indicator [V] : A stock is defined as volatile if the stock price has moved up or down by 20% or more in a month in at least 8 of the past 24 months or the analyst expects significant volatility going forward.

Analysts’ sector weightings are distinct from analysts’ stock ratings and are based on the analyst’s expectations for the fundamentals and/or valuation of the sector* relative to the group’s historic fundamentals and/or valuation:

Overweight : The analyst’s expectation for the sector’s fundamentals and/or valuation is favorable over the next 12 months.

Market Weight : The analyst’s expectation for the sector’s fundamentals and/or valuation is neutral over the next 12 months.

Underweight : The analyst’s expectation for the sector’s fundamentals and/or valuation is cautious over the next 12 months.

*An analyst’s coverage sector consists of all companies covered by the analyst within the relevant sector. An analyst may cover multiple sectors.

Credit Suisse's distribution of stock ratings (and banking clients) is:

Global Ratings Distribution

Rating Versus universe (%) Of which banking clients (%)

Outperform/Buy* 42% (53% banking clients)

Neutral/Hold* 38% (47% banking clients)

Underperform/Sell* 16% (40% banking clients)

Restricted 3%

*For purposes of the NYSE and NASD ratings distribution disclosure requirements, our stock ratings of Outperform, Neutral, an d Underperform most closely correspond to Buy, Hold, and Sell, respectively; however, the meanings are not the same, as our stock ratings are determined on a relative basis. (Please refer to definitions above.) An investor's decision to buy or sell a security should be based on investment objectives, current holdings, and other individual factors.

Credit Suisse’s policy is to update research reports as it deems appropriate, based on developments with the subject company, the sector or the market that may have a material impact on the research views or opinions stated herein.

Credit Suisse's policy is only to publish investment research that is impartial, independent, clear, fair and not misleading. For more detail please refer to Credit Suisse's Policies for Managing Conflicts of Interest in connection with Investment Research: http://www.csfb.com/research and analytics/disclaimer/managing_conflicts_disclaimer.html

Credit Suisse does not provide any tax advice. Any statement herein regarding any US federal tax is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purposes of avoiding any penalties.

Price Target: (12 months) for SandRidge Energy, Inc. (SD.N)

Method: Our TP of $6.30 is based on a 6 times 2013 EBIDAX multiple and 70% of NAV.

Risk: In Q3 2012, SD revised down its EUR in the Mississippian, lowered its expected oil yield and increased decline rate of the curve. The further deterioration of their well curves would put downward pressure on our $6.30 target price.

Please refer to the firm's disclosure website at www.credit-suisse.com/researchdisclosures for the definitions of abbreviations typically used in the target price method and risk sections.

See the Companies Mentioned section for full company names

The subject company (SD.N, APC.N, ATPG.OQ^H12, BCEI.N, BRY.N, CHK.N, COP.N, FST.N, MRO.N, CRK.N, CRZO.OQ, CVX.N, CXO.N, DNR.N, DOR.N, DVN.N, FANG.OQ, OXY.N, ECA.N, ENI.MI, GPOR.L, EOG.N, EXXI.OQ, HES.N, KOG.N, MHR.N, NBL.N, PVA.N, PXD.N, REP.MC, REXX.OQ, ROSE.OQ, RRC.N, SFY.N, TOT.N, XOM.N) currently is, or was during the 12-month period preceding the date of distribution of this report, a client of Credit Suisse.

Credit Suisse provided investment banking services to the subject company (SD.N, APC.N, ATPG.OQ^H12, BCEI.N, BRY.N, CHK.N, COP.N, FST.N, CRZO.OQ, CVX.N, CXO.N, DNR.N, DOR.N, DVN.N, FANG.OQ, OXY.N, ECA.N, ENI.MI, GPOR.L, EOG.N, EXXI.OQ, KOG.N, MHR.N, NBL.N, PVA.N, PXD.N, REXX.OQ, RRC.N, SFY.N, TOT.N, XOM.N) within the past 12 months.

Credit Suisse provided non-investment banking services to the subject company (SD.N, APC.N, BRY.N, CHK.N, COP.N, FST.N, MRO.N, CRZO.OQ, CXO.N, DNR.N, DOR.N, DVN.N, ECA.N, ENI.MI, EOG.N, EXXI.OQ, KOG.N, MHR.N, NBL.N, PXD.N, REP.MC, RRC.N, XOM.N) within the past 12 months

Credit Suisse has managed or co-managed a public offering of securities for the subject company (SD.N, BCEI.N, BRY.N, CHK.N, COP.N, FST.N, CRZO.OQ, DNR.N, DOR.N, DVN.N, FANG.OQ, ECA.N, ENI.MI, GPOR.L, EOG.N, KOG.N, MHR.N, PVA.N, PXD.N, RRC.N, TOT.N) within the past 12 months.

12 February 2013


Credit Suisse has received investment banking related compensation from the subject company (SD.N, APC.N, ATPG.OQ^H12, BCEI.N, BRY.N, CHK.N, COP.N, FST.N, CRZO.OQ, CVX.N, CXO.N, DNR.N, DOR.N, DVN.N, FANG.OQ, OXY.N, ECA.N, ENI.MI, GPOR.L, EOG.N, EXXI.OQ, KOG.N, MHR.N, NBL.N, PVA.N, PXD.N, REXX.OQ, RRC.N, SFY.N, TOT.N, XOM.N) within the past 12 months

Credit Suisse expects to receive or intends to seek investment banking related compensation from the subject company (SD.N, APA.N, APC.N, ATPG.OQ^H12, BCEI.N, BRY.N, CHK.N, COP.N, FST.N, MRO.N, CRK.N, CRZO.OQ, CVX.N, CXO.N, DNR.N, DOR.N, DVN.N, FANG.OQ, OXY.N, ECA.N, ENI.MI, GPOR.L, EOG.N, EXXI.OQ, HES.N, KOG.N, MHR.N, NBL.N, PVA.N, PXD.N, REXX.OQ, ROSE.OQ, RRC.N, SFY.N, TOT.N, WLL.N, XOM.N) within the next 3 months.

Credit Suisse has received compensation for products and services other than investment banking services from the subject company (SD.N, APC.N, BRY.N, CHK.N, COP.N, FST.N, MRO.N, CRZO.OQ, CXO.N, DNR.N, DOR.N, DVN.N, ECA.N, ENI.MI, EOG.N, EXXI.OQ, KOG.N, MHR.N, NBL.N, PXD.N, REP.MC, RRC.N, XOM.N) within the past 12 months

As of the date of this report, Credit Suisse makes a market in the following subject companies (SD.N, APA.N, APC.N, ATPG.OQ^H12, BCEI.N, BRY.N, CHK.N, COP.N, FST.N, MRO.N, CRK.N, CRZO.OQ, CVX.N, CXO.N, DNR.N, DVN.N, FANG.OQ, OXY.N, ECA.N, EOG.N, EXXI.OQ, HES.N, KOG.N, MHR.N, NBL.N, PVA.N, PXD.N, REXX.OQ, PDCE.OQ, ROSE.OQ, RRC.N, SFY.N, SWN.N, TOT.N, WLL.N, XOM.N).

As of the end of the preceding month, Credit Suisse beneficially own 1% or more of a class of common equity securities of (CHK.N).

Important Regional Disclosures

Singapore recipients should contact Credit Suisse AG, Singapore Branch for any matters arising from this research report.

The analyst(s) involved in the preparation of this report have not visited the material operations of the subject company (SD.N, APA.N, APC.N, ATPG.OQ^H12, BCEI.N, BRY.N, CHK.N, COP.N, FST.N, MRO.N, CRK.N, CRZO.OQ, CVX.N, DNR.N, DVN.N, FANG.OQ, OXY.N, ECA.N, ENI.MI, GPOR.L, EOG.N, EXXI.OQ, HES.N, KOG.N, MHR.N, NBL.N, PVA.N, PXD.N, REP.MC, REXX.OQ, PDCE.OQ, ROSE.OQ, RRC.N, SFY.N, SWN.N, TOT.N, WLL.N, XOM.N) within the past 12 months

Restrictions on certain Canadian securities are indicated by the following abbreviations: NVS--Non-Voting shares; RVS--Restricted Voting Shares; SVS--Subordinate Voting Shares.

Individuals receiving this report from a Canadian investment dealer that is not affiliated with Credit Suisse should be advised that this report may not contain regulatory disclosures the non-affiliated Canadian investment dealer would be required to make if this were its own report.

For Credit Suisse Securities (Canada), Inc.'s policies and procedures regarding the dissemination of equity research, please visit http://www.csfb.com/legal_terms/canada_research_policy.shtml.

Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Limited (Credit Suisse) acts as broker to (GPOR.L).

The following disclosed European company/ies have estimates that comply with IFRS: (ENI.MI, GPOR.L, REP.MC, XOM.N).

As of the date of this report, Credit Suisse acts as a market maker or liquidity provider in the equities securities that are the subject of this report.

Principal is not guaranteed in the case of equities because equity prices are variable.

Commission is the commission rate or the amount agreed with a customer when setting up an account or at any time after that.

CS may have issued a Trade Alert regarding this security. Trade Alerts are short term trading opportunities identified by an analyst on the basis of market events and catalysts, while stock ratings reflect an analyst's investment recommendations based on expected total return over a 12-month period relative to the relevant coverage universe. Because Trade Alerts and stock ratings reflect different assumptions and analytical methods, Trade Alerts may differ directionally from the analyst's stock rating.

The author(s) of this report maintains a CS Model Portfolio that he/she regularly adjusts. The security or securities discussed in this report may be a component of the CS Model Portfolio and subject to such adjustments (which, given the composition of the CS Model Portfolio as a whole, may differ from the recommendation in this report, as well as opportunities or strategies identified in Trading Alerts concerning the same security). The CS Model Portfolio and important disclosures about it are available at www.credit-suisse.com/ti.

Important Credit Suisse HOLT Disclosures

With respect to the analysis in this report based on the Credit Suisse HOLT methodology, Credit Suisse certifies that (1) the views expressed in this report accurately reflect the Credit Suisse HOLT methodology and (2) no part of the Firm’s compensation was, is, or will be directly related to the specific views disclosed in this report

The Credit Suisse HOLT methodology does not assign ratings to a security. It is an analytical tool that involves use of a set of proprietary quantitative algorithms and warranted value calculations, collectively called the Credit Suisse HOLT valuation model, that are consistently applied to all the companies included in its database. Third-part data (including consensus earnings estimates) are systematically translated into a number of default algorithms available in the Credit Suisse HOLT valuation model. The source financial statement, pricing, and earnings data provided by outside data vendors are subject to quality control and may also be adjusted to more closely measure the underlying economics of firm performance. The adjustments provide consistency when analyzing a single company across time, or analyzing multiple companies across industries or national borders. The default scenario that is produced by the Credit Suisse HOLT valuation model establishes the baseline valuation for a security, and a user then may adjust the default variables to produce alternative scenarios, any of which could occur.

Additional information about the Credit Suisse HOLT methodology is available on request.

12 February 2013


The Credit Suisse HOLT methodology does not assign a price target to a security. The default scenario that is produced by the Credit Suisse HOLT valuation model establishes a warranted price for a security, and as the third-party data are updated, the warranted price may also change. The default variable may also be adjusted to produce alternative warranted prices, any of which could occur.

CFROI®, HOLT, HOLTfolio, ValueSearch, AggreGator, Signal Flag and “Powered by HOLT” are trademarks or service marks or registered trademarks or registered service marks of Credit Suisse or its affiliates in the United States and other countries. HOLT is a corporate performance and valuation advisory service of Credit Suisse.

For Credit Suisse disclosure information on other companies mentioned in this report, please visit the website at www.credit-suisse.com/researchdisclosures or call +1 (877) 291-2683.

12 February 2013


References in this report to Credit Suisse include all of the subsidiaries and affiliates of Credit Suisse operating under its investment banking division. For more information on our structure, please use the following link: https://www.credit-suisse.com/who_we_are/en/.This report may contain material that is not directed to, or intended for distribution to or use by, any person or entity who is a citizen or resident of or located in any locality, state, country or other jurisdiction where such distribution, publication, availability or use would be contrary to law or regulation or which would subject Credit Suisse AG or its affiliates ("CS") to any registration or licensing requirement within such jurisdiction. All material presented in this report, unless specifically indicated otherwise, is under copyright to CS. None of the material, nor its content, nor any copy of it, may be altered in any way, transmitted to, copied or distributed to any other party, without the prior express written permission of CS. All trademarks, service marks and logos used in this report are trademarks or service marks or registered trademarks or service marks of CS or its affiliates. The information, tools and material presented in this report are provided to you for information purposes only and are not to be used or considered as an offer or the solicitation of an offer to sell or to buy or subscribe for securities or other financial instruments. CS may not have taken any steps to ensure that the securities referred to in this report are suitable for any particular investor. CS will not treat recipients of this report as its customers by virtue of their receiving this report. The investments and services contained or referred to in this report may not be suitable for you and it is recommended that you consult an independent investment advisor if you are in doubt about such investments or investment services. Nothing in this report constitutes investment, legal, accounting or tax advice, or a representation that any investment or strategy is suitable or appropriate to your individual circumstances, or otherwise constitutes a personal recommendation to you. CS does not advise on the tax consequences of investments and you are advised to contact an independent tax adviser. Please note in particular that the bases and levels of taxation may change. Information and opinions presented in this report have been obtained or derived from sources believed by CS to be reliable, but CS makes no representation as to their accuracy or completeness. CS accepts no liability for loss arising from the use of the material presented in this report, except that this exclusion of liability does not apply to the extent that such liability arises under specific statutes or regulations applicable to CS. This report is not to be relied upon in substitution for the exercise of independent judgment. CS may have issued, and may in the future issue, other communications that are inconsistent with, and reach different conclusions from, the information presented in this report. Those communications reflect the different assumptions, views and analytical methods of the analysts who prepared them and CS is under no obligation to ensure that such other communications are brought to the attention of any recipient of this report. CS may, to the extent permitted by law, participate or invest in financing transactions with the issuer(s) of the securities referred to in this report, perform services for or solicit business from such issuers, and/or have a position or holding, or other material interest, or effect transactions, in such securities or options thereon, or other investments related thereto. In addition, it may make markets in the securities mentioned in the material presented in this report. CS may have, within the last three years, served as manager or co-manager of a public offering of securities for, or currently may make a primary market in issues of, any or all of the entities mentioned in this report or may be providing, or have provided within the previous 12 months, significant advice or investment services in relation to the investment concerned or a related investment. Additional information is, subject to duties of confidentiality, available on request. Some investments referred to in this report will be offered solely by a single entity and in the case of some investments solely by CS, or an associate of CS or CS may be the only market maker in such investments. Past performance should not be taken as an indication or guarantee of future performance, and no representation or warranty, express or implied, is made regarding future performance. Information, opinions and estimates contained in this report reflect a judgment at its original date of publication by CS and are subject to change without notice. The price, value of and income from any of the securities or financial instruments mentioned in this report can fall as well as rise. The value of securities and financial instruments is subject to exchange rate fluctuation that may have a positive or adverse effect on the price or income of such securities or financial instruments. Investors in securities such as ADR's, the values of which are influenced by currency volatility, effectively assume this risk. Structured securities are complex instruments, typically involve a high degree of risk and are intended for sale only to sophisticated investors who are capable of understanding and assuming the risks involved. The market value of any structured security may be affected by changes in economic, financial and political factors (including, but not limited to, spot and forward interest and exchange rates), time to maturity, market conditions and volatility, and the credit quality of any issuer or reference issuer. Any investor interested in purchasing a structured product should conduct their own investigation and analysis of the product and consult with their own professional advisers as to the risks involved in making such a purchase. Some investments discussed in this report may have a high level of volatility. High volatility investments may experience sudden and large falls in their value causing losses when that investment is realised. Those losses may equal your original investment. Indeed, in the case of some investments the potential losses may exceed the amount of initial investment and, in such circumstances, you may be required to pay more money to support those losses. Income yields from investments may fluctuate and, in consequence, initial capital paid to make the investment may be used as part of that income yield. Some investments may not be readily realisable and it may be difficult to sell or realise those investments, similarly it may prove difficult for you to obtain reliable information about the value, or risks, to which such an investment is exposed. This report may provide the addresses of, or contain hyperlinks to, websites. Except to the extent to which the report refers to website material of CS, CS has not reviewed any such site and takes no responsibility for the content contained therein. Such address or hyperlink (including addresses or hyperlinks to CS's own website material) is provided solely for your convenience and information and the content of any such website does not in any way form part of this document. Accessing such website or following such link through this report or CS's website shall be at your own risk. This report is issued and distributed in Europe (except Switzerland) by Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Limited, One Cabot Square, London E14 4QJ, England, which is regulated in the United Kingdom by The Financial Services Authority ("FSA"). This report is being distributed in Germany by Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) This report is being distributed in the United States and Canada by Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC; in Switzerland by Credit Suisse AG; in Brazil by Banco de Investimentos Credit Suisse (Brasil) S.A or its affiliates; in Mexico by Banco Credit Suisse (México), S.A. (transactions related to the securities mentioned in this report will only be effected in compliance with applicable regulation); in Japan by Credit Suisse Securities (Japan) Limited, Financial Instruments Firm, Director-General of Kanto Local Finance Bureau (Kinsho) No. 66, a member of Japan Securities Dealers Association, The Financial Futures Association of Japan, Japan Investment Advisers Association, Type II Financial Instruments Firms Association; elsewhere in Asia/ Pacific by whichever of the following is the appropriately authorised entity in the relevant jurisdiction: Credit Suisse (Hong Kong) Limited, Credit Suisse Equities (Australia) Limited, Credit Suisse Securities (Thailand) Limited, Credit Suisse Securities (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd, Credit Suisse AG, Singapore Branch, Credit Suisse Securities (India) Private Limited regulated by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (registration Nos. INB230970637; INF230970637; INB010970631; INF010970631), having registered address at 9th Floor, Ceejay House, Dr.A.B. Road, Worli, Mumbai - 18, India, T- +91-22 6777 3777, Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Limited, Seoul Branch, Credit Suisse AG, Taipei Securities Branch, PT Credit Suisse Securities Indonesia, Credit Suisse Securities (Philippines ) Inc., and elsewhere in the world by the relevant authorised affiliate of the above. Research on Taiwanese securities produced by Credit Suisse AG, Taipei Securities Branch has been prepared by a registered Senior Business Person. Research provided to residents of Malaysia is authorised by the Head of Research for Credit Suisse Securities (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd, to whom they should direct any queries on +603 2723 2020. This research may not conform to Canadian disclosure requirements. In jurisdictions where CS is not already registered or licensed to trade in securities, transactions will only be effected in accordance with applicable securities legislation, which will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and may require that the trade be made in accordance with applicable exemptions from registration or licensing requirements. Non-U.S. customers wishing to effect a transaction should contact a CS entity in their local jurisdiction unless governing law permits otherwise. U.S. customers wishing to effect a transaction should do so only by contacting a representative at Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC in the U.S. Please note that this research was originally prepared and issued by CS for distribution to their market professional and institutional investor customers. Recipients who are not market professional or institutional investor customers of CS should seek the advice of their independent financial advisor prior to taking any investment decision based on this report or for any necessary explanation of its contents. This research may relate to investments or services of a person outside of the UK or to other matters which are not regulated by the FSA or in respect of which the protections of the FSA for private customers and/or the UK compensation scheme may not be available, and further details as to where this may be the case are available upon request in respect of this report. CS may provide various services to US municipal entities or obligated persons ("municipalities"), including suggesting individual transactions or trades and entering into such transactions. Any services CS provides to municipalities are not viewed as "advice" within the meaning of Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. CS is providing any such services and related information solely on an arm's length basis and not as an advisor or fiduciary to the municipality. In connection with the provision of the any such services, there is no agreement, direct or indirect, between any municipality (including the officials, management, employees or agents thereof) and CS for CS to provide advice to the municipality. Municipalities should consult with their financial, accounting and legal advisors regarding any such services provided by CS. In addition, CS is not acting for direct or indirect compensation to solicit the municipality on behalf of an unaffiliated broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, or investment adviser for the purpose of obtaining or retaining an engagement by the municipality for or in connection with Municipal Financial Products, the issuance of municipal securities, or of an investment adviser to provide investment advisory services to or on behalf of the municipality. If this report is being distributed by a financial institution other than Credit Suisse AG, or its affiliates, that financial institution is solely responsible for distribution. Clients of that institution should contact that institution to effect a transaction in the securities mentioned in this report or require further information. This report does not constitute investment advice by Credit Suisse to the clients of the distributing financial institution, and neither Credit Suisse AG, its affiliates, and their respective officers, directors and employees accept any liability whatsoever for any direct or consequential loss arising from their use of this report or its content. Principal is not guaranteed. Commission is the commission rate or the amount agreed with a customer when setting up an account or at any time after that.

Copyright © 2013 CREDIT SUISSE AG and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

Investment principal on bonds can be eroded depending on sale price or market price. In addition, there are bonds on which investment principal can be eroded due to changes in redemption amounts. Care is required when investing in such instruments.

When you purchase non-listed Japanese fixed income securities (Japanese government bonds, Japanese municipal bonds, Japanese government guaranteed bonds, Japanese corporate bonds) from CS as a seller, you will be requested to pay the purchase price only.

SD Initiation Report--edited.doc

https://www.credit-suisse.com/who_we_are/en/

Documents

SandRidge Energy, Inc