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

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2017

Basis of Presentation and Significant Accounting Policies [Abstract]

Consolidation, Policy [Policy Text Block]

Basis of Presentation

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

New Accounting Pronouncements, Policy [Policy Text Block]

Recently Issued Accounting Standards

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

• ASU 2016-09 requires all future excess tax benefits and deficiencies related to share-based payment arrangements to be recognized as income tax benefit or expense as discrete events in the period in which they occur. The Company adopted this amendment under a modified retrospective transition method, which resulted in a $44.3 million cumulative-effect adjustment to retained earnings as of January 1, 2017, with a corresponding deferred tax asset recorded for previously unrecognized excess tax benefits. Consequentially, the Company’s diluted share count calculation changed prospectively beginning in the period ended March 31, 2017. Any future excess tax benefits and deficiencies are now being excluded from the assumed proceeds calculated under the treasury stock method for share-based payment arrangements. Lastly, this amendment requires companies to present excess tax benefits as an operating activity on the statement of cash flows rather than as a financing activity, which the Company applied prospectively beginning in the period ended March 31, 2017. There are no periods presented that would require reclassification of cash flows had the Company elected to apply this amendment retrospectively.

• ASU 2016-09 allows entities to elect whether to account for forfeitures of share-based payment awards by recognizing forfeitures of awards as they occur or by estimating the number of awards expected to be forfeited. This amendment is to be applied using a modified retrospective transition method. Upon adopting ASU 2016-09, the Company elected to change its policy to account for forfeitures of share-based payment awards as they occur effective January 1, 2017. This change in accounting policy resulted in a net $0.7 million cumulative-effect adjustment to retained earnings as of January 1, 2017, to adjust for actual forfeitures versus the previously estimated forfeiture rate. The corresponding impacts were an increase in additional paid-in capital and a decrease in deferred tax assets.

• ASU 2016-09 allows entities to withhold an amount up to the employees’ maximum individual tax rate in the relevant jurisdiction, without triggering liability classification of the award; however, the Company does not plan on changing its current withholding process as outlined in its share-based award agreements. Related to this amendment, ASU 2016-09 requires entities to present cash payments made to tax authorities on the employees’ behalf for withheld tax shares as a financing activity on the statement of cash flows retrospectively. However, this presentation is already consistent with the Company’s historical and current cash flow presentation of net share settlement from issuance of stock awards, and therefore, there was no impact from this amendment.

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606) for the recognition of revenue from contracts with customers. Several additional related ASUs have been issued. The Company has established a cross-functional implementation team that is currently evaluating the provisions of each of these standards, analyzing their impact on the Company’s contract portfolio, reviewing current accounting policies and practices to identify potential differences that would result from applying the requirements of these standards to the Company’s revenue contracts, and assessing their potential impact on the Company’s financial statements and disclosures. The Company currently plans to apply the modified retrospective method upon adoption and plans to adopt the guidance on the effective date of January 1, 2018.

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842), which changes the accounting for leases. The Company is currently establishing a cross-functional implementation team to analyze the impact of the standard on the Company’s contract portfolio by reviewing current accounting policies and practices to identify potential differences that would result from applying the requirements of the new standard. In addition, the Company is working to identify appropriate changes to the Company’s business processes, systems, and controls to support recognition and disclosure under the new standard. The Company currently plans to adopt the guidance on the effective date of January 1, 2019.

In March 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-07, Compensation - Retirement Benefits (Topic 715): Improving the Presentation of Net Periodic Pension Cost and Net Periodic Postretirement Benefit Cost (“ASU 2017-07”). This ASU is intended to improve the presentation of net periodic pension cost and net periodic postretirement benefit cost by providing additional guidance on the presentation of net benefit cost on the income statement and on the components eligible for capitalization in assets. As outlined in ASU 2017-07, certain amendments are to be applied using a retrospective method while others are required to be applied using a prospective method. The guidance is effective for annual periods, and interim periods within those annual periods, beginning after December 15, 2017. Early adoption is permitted as outlined in ASU 2017-07. The Company is currently evaluating the provisions of this guidance and assessing the potential impact on the Company’s financial statements and disclosures and does not intend to early adopt this guidance.

Other than as disclosed above or in the 2016 Form 10-K, there are no other accounting standards applicable to the Company that would have a material effect on the Company’s financial statements and related disclosures that have been issued but not yet adopted by the Company as of March 31, 2017, and through the filing of this report.

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

Derivatives

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

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

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

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

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

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

Property and equipment, net measured at fair value within the accompanying balance sheets totaled $443.8 million as of March 31, 2017, and related to assets held for sale as further discussed below. Property and equipment, net measured at fair value totaled $88.2 million as of December 31, 2016, and related primarily to downward performance reserve revisions on the Company’s Powder River Basin assets at year-end.

Proved oil and gas properties. Proved oil and gas property costs are evaluated for impairment and reduced to fair value when there is an indication the carrying costs may not be recoverable. The Company uses Level 3 inputs and the income valuation technique, which converts future amounts to a single present value amount, to measure the fair value of proved properties through an application of discount rates and price forecasts representative of the current operating environment, as selected by the Company’s management. The calculation of the discount rates are based on the best information available and the rates used ranged from 10 percent to 15 percent based on the reservoir specific weightings of future estimated proved and unproved cash flows as of March 31, 2017, and December 31, 2016. The Company believes the discount rates are representative of current market conditions and consider estimates of future cash payments, reserve categories, expectations of possible variations in the amount and/or timing of cash flows, the risk premium, and nonperformance risk. The prices for oil and gas are forecast based on NYMEX strip pricing, adjusted for basis differentials, for the first five years, after which a flat terminal price is used for each commodity stream. The prices for NGLs are forecast using OPIS Mont Belvieu pricing, for as long as the market is actively trading, after which a flat terminal price is used. Future operating costs are also adjusted as deemed appropriate for these estimates. There were no impairments on proved properties during the three months ended March 31, 2017. For the three months ended March 31, 2016, the Company recorded $269.8 million of proved property impairments related primarily to the Company’s outside-operated Eagle Ford shale assets and the decline in expected reserve cash flows driven by commodity price declines during the first quarter of 2016.

Unproved oil and gas properties. Unproved oil and gas property costs are evaluated for impairment and reduced to fair value when there is an indication that the carrying costs may not be recoverable.  To measure the fair value of unproved properties, the Company uses a market approach, which takes into account the following significant assumptions: remaining lease terms, future development plans, risk weighted potential resource recovery, estimated reserve values, and estimated acreage value based on price(s) received for similar, recent acreage transactions by the Company or other market participants. There were no material abandonments or impairments of unproved properties during the three months ended March 31, 2017, or 2016.

Oil and gas properties held for sale. Proved and unproved properties and other property and equipment classified as held for sale, including the corresponding asset retirement obligation liability, are valued using a market approach based on an estimated net selling price, as evidenced by the most current bid prices received from third parties, if available, or by recent, comparable market transactions. If an estimated selling price is not available, the Company utilizes the various income valuation techniques discussed above. Any initial write-down and subsequent changes to the fair value less estimated cost to sell is included within the net gain (loss) on divestiture activity line item in the accompanying statements of operations. For the three months ended March 31, 2017, write-downs to fair value less estimated costs to sell on the Divide County assets held for sale totaled $359.6 million. For the three months ended March 31, 2016, write-downs to fair value less estimated costs to sell on certain assets held for sale totaled $68.3 million. Certain of these assets were subsequently sold in the third quarter of 2016 for a small net gain due to successful marketing efforts. Please refer to Note 3 – Divestitures, Assets Held for Sale, and Acquisitionsfor additional discussion.