TALOS ENERGY INC. - Annual Report: 2019 (Form 10-K)

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019

OR

For the transition period from                      to                     

Commission File Number 01-38497

Talos Energy Inc.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its Charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (713) 328-3000

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ☑ NO ☐

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. Yes ☐ No ☑

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ☑ NO ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files). Yes ☑ NO ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes ☐ NO ☑

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant, based on the closing price of the shares of common stock on the New York Stock Exchange on June 30, 2019, was $481,140,961.

The number of shares of registrant’s Common Stock outstanding as of March 4, 2020 was 54,204,730.

Portions of the registrant’s definitive proxy statement relating to the 2020 Annual Meeting of Shareholders are incorporated by reference into Part III of this report.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

GLOSSARY

The following are abbreviations and definitions of certain terms used in this document, which are commonly used in the oil and natural gas industry:

Barrel or Bbl — One stock tank barrel, or 42 United States gallons liquid volume.

Boe — One barrel of oil equivalent determined using the ratio of six Mcf of natural gas to one barrel of crude oil or condensate.

Boepd — Barrels of oil equivalent per day.

Btu — British thermal unit, which is the heat required to raise the temperature of a one-pound mass of water one degree Fahrenheit.

Completion — The installation of permanent equipment for the production of oil or natural gas.

Deepwater — Water depths of more than 600 feet.

Developed acres — The number of acres that are allocated or assignable to producing wells or wells capable of production.

Field — An area consisting of a single reservoir or multiple reservoirs all grouped on or related to the same individual geological structural feature or stratigraphic condition.

Gross acres or gross wells — The total acres or wells in which the Company owns a working interest.

MBbls — One thousand barrels of crude oil or other liquid hydrocarbons.

MBblpd — One thousand barrels of crude oil or other liquid hydrocarbons per day.

MBoe — One thousand barrels of oil equivalent.

MBoepd — One thousand barrels of oil equivalent per day.

Mcf — One thousand cubic feet of natural gas.

Mcfpd — One thousand cubic feet of natural gas per day.

MMBoe — One million barrels of oil equivalent.

MMBtu — One million British thermal units (“Btus”).

MMcf — One million cubic feet of natural gas.

MMcfpd — One million cubic feet of natural gas per day.

Net acres or net wells — The sum of the fractional working interests the Company owns in gross acres or gross wells.

NGL — Natural gas liquid. Hydrocarbons which can be extracted from wet natural gas and become liquid under various combinations of increasing pressure and lower temperature. NGLs consist primarily of ethane, propane, butane and natural gasoline.

NYMEX — The New York Mercantile Exchange.

NYMEX Henry Hub — Henry Hub is the major exchange for pricing natural gas futures on the New York Mercantile Exchange. It is frequently referred to as the Henry Hub Index.

Productive well — A well that is found to be capable of producing hydrocarbons in sufficient quantities such that proceeds from the sale of such production exceed production expenses and taxes.

Proved developed reserves — In general, proved reserves that can be expected to be recovered from existing wells with existing equipment and operating methods. The SEC provides a complete definition of developed oil and gas reserves in Rule 4-10(a)(6) of Regulation S-X.

3

Proved reserves — Proved reserves are those quantities of oil and natural gas, which, by analysis of geoscience and engineering data, can be estimated with reasonable certainty to be economically producible – from a given date forward, from known reservoirs and under existing economic conditions, operating methods and government regulations — prior to the time at which contracts providing the right to operate expire, unless evidence indicates that renewal is reasonably certain, regardless of whether deterministic or probabilistic methods are used for the estimation. The project to extract the hydrocarbons must have commenced or the operator must be reasonably certain that it will commence the project within a reasonable time.

Proved undeveloped reserves — In general, proved reserves that are expected to be recovered from new wells on undrilled acreage or from existing wells where a relatively major expenditure is required for recompletion. The SEC provides a complete definition of undeveloped oil and gas reserves in Rule 4-10(a)(31) of Regulation S-X.

PV-10 — The present value of estimated future revenues, discounted at 10% annually, to be generated from the production of proved reserves determined in accordance with SEC guidelines, net of estimated production and future development costs, using prices and costs as of the date of estimation without future escalation, without giving effect to (i) non-property related expenses such as general and administrative expenses, derivatives, debt service and future income tax expense or (ii) depreciation depletion and amortization expense.

SEC — The Securities and Exchange Commission.

SEC pricing — The unweighted average first-day-of-the-month commodity price for crude oil or natural gas for the period beginning January 1, 2019 and ending December 1, 2019, adjusted by lease for market differentials (quality, transportation, fees, energy content, and regional price differentials). The SEC provides a complete definition of prices in “Modernization of Oil and Gas Reporting” (Final Rule, Release Nos. 33-8995; 34-59192).

Shelf — Water depths up to 600 feet.

Standardized Measure — The present value of estimated future net revenue to be generated from the production of proved reserves, determined in accordance with the rules, regulations or standards established by the SEC and the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) (using prices and costs in effect as of the date of estimation), less future development, production and income tax expenses, and discounted at 10% per annum to reflect the timing of future net revenue. For the years ending December 31, 2019 and 2018 we were subject to U.S. federal and state income taxes at the entity level. For the tax year ending December 31, 2017, we were not subject to U.S. federal or state income taxes (in most states) at the entity level and thus made no provision for U.S. federal or state income taxes in the calculation of our standardized measure. Standardized measure does not give effect to derivative transactions.

Undeveloped acreage — Lease acreage on which wells have not been drilled or completed to a point that would permit the production of commercial quantities of oil and gas regardless of whether such acreage contains proved reserves.

Working interest — The operating interest that gives the owner the right to drill, produce and conduct operating activities on the property and a share of production.

WTI or West Texas Intermediate — A light crude oil produced in the United States with an American Petroleum Institute (“API”) gravity of approximately 38-40 and the sulfur content is approximately 0.3%.

4

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

The information in this report includes “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). All statements, other than statements of historical fact included in this report, regarding our strategy, future operations, financial position, estimated revenues and losses, projected costs, prospects, plans and objectives of management are forward-looking statements. When used in this report, the words “could,” “believe,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “estimate,” “expect,” “project,” “forecast,” “may,” “objective, “plan,” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain such identifying words. These forward-looking statements are based on our current expectations and assumptions about future events and are based on currently available information as to the outcome and timing of future events. These forward-looking statements are based on management’s current belief, based on currently available information, as to the outcome and timing of future events. Forward-looking statements may include statements about:

5

We caution you that these forward-looking statements are subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, most of which are difficult to predict and many of which are beyond our control. These risks include, but are not limited to, commodity price volatility, inflation, lack of availability of drilling and production equipment and services, environmental risks, failure to find, acquire or gain access to other discoveries and prospects or to successfully develop and produce from our current discoveries and prospects, geologic risk, drilling and other operating risks, well control risk, regulatory changes, the uncertainty inherent in estimating reserves and in projecting future rates of production, cash flow and access to capital, the timing of development expenditures, potential adverse reactions or competitive responses to our acquisitions and other transactions, the possibility that the anticipated benefits of such business combination are not realized when expected or at all, including as a result of the impact of, or problems arising from, the integration of acquired assets and operations, and the other risks discussed in Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors” which are included herein.

Reserve engineering is a process of estimating underground accumulations of oil, natural gas and NGLs that cannot be measured in an exact way. The accuracy of any reserve estimate depends on the quality of available data, the interpretation of such data and price and cost assumptions made by reserve engineers. In addition, the results of drilling, testing and production activities may justify upward or downward revisions of estimates that were made previously. If significant, such revisions would change the schedule of any further production and development drilling. Accordingly, reserve estimates may differ significantly from the quantities of oil, natural gas and NGLs that are ultimately recovered.

Should one or more of the risks or uncertainties described herein occur, or should underlying assumptions prove incorrect, our actual results and plans could differ materially from those expressed in any forward-looking statements. All forward-looking statements, expressed or implied, included in this report are expressly qualified in their entirety by this cautionary statement. This cautionary statement should also be considered in connection with any subsequent written or oral forward-looking statements that we or persons acting on our behalf may issue. Except as otherwise required by applicable law, we disclaim any duty to update any forward-looking statements, all of which are expressly qualified by the statements in this section, to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this report.

6

Part I

Items 1 and 2. Business and Properties

Overview

As used in this Annual Report on Form 10-K (this “Annual Report”) and unless otherwise indicated or the context otherwise requires, references to “we,” “us,” “our,” “Talos Energy Inc.,” “Talos” and the “Company” refer to, from and after the Stone Closing (as defined below), Talos Energy Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries and prior to the Stone Closing, Talos Energy LLC and its consolidated subsidiaries.

We were incorporated on November 14, 2017 under the laws of the state of Delaware for the purpose of effecting the business combination between Talos Energy LLC and Stone Energy Corporation (“Stone”), pursuant to which each of Talos Energy LLC and Stone became our wholly-owned subsidiary. We refer to this business combination as the “Stone Combination,” and its date of consummation, May 10, 2018, as the “Stone Closing Date.”

We are a technically driven independent exploration and production company focused on safely and efficiently maximizing value through our operations, currently in the United States Gulf of Mexico and offshore Mexico. We leverage decades of geology, geophysics and offshore operations expertise towards the acquisition, exploration, exploitation and development of assets in key geological trends that are present in many offshore basins around the world.

We have historically focused our operations in the Gulf of Mexico because of our deep experience and technical expertise in the basin, which maintains favorable geologic and economic conditions, including multiple reservoir formations, comprehensive geologic and geophysical databases, extensive infrastructure and an attractive and robust asset acquisition market. Additionally, we have access to state-of-the-art three-dimensional seismic data, some of which is aided by new and enhanced reprocessing techniques that have not been previously applied to our current acreage position. We use our broad regional seismic database and our reprocessing efforts to generate a large and expanding inventory of high-quality prospects, which we believe greatly improves our development and exploration success. The application of our extensive seismic database, coupled with our ability to effectively reprocess this seismic data, allows us to both optimize our organic drilling program and better evaluate a wide range of business development opportunities, including acquisitions and joint venture opportunities, among others.

In order to determine the most attractive returns for our drilling program, we employ a disciplined portfolio management approach to stochastically evaluate all of our drilling prospects, whether they are generated organically from our existing acreage or are acquisition or joint venture opportunities. We add to and re- evaluate our inventory in order to deploy capital as efficiently as possible.

Prior to the Stone Combination, Talos Energy Inc. had not conducted any material activities other than those incident to its incorporation and certain matters contemplated by that certain transaction agreement, dated as of November 21, 2017 (the “Stone Transaction Agreement”) by and among Stone, Talos Energy Inc., Sailfish Merger Sub Corporation (“Merger Sub”), Talos Energy LLC (which was renamed to Talos Energy Inc. and converted into a Delaware corporation after the Stone Combination) and Talos Production LLC (which was converted into a Delaware corporation named Talos Production Inc. in 2019), pursuant to which, among other items, each of Stone, Talos Production LLC and Talos Energy LLC became wholly-owned subsidiaries of Talos Energy Inc. The Stone Combination was accounted for as a business combination in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”), with Talos Energy LLC treated as the “acquirer” and Stone treated as the “acquired” company for financial reporting purposes. Accordingly, the reported financial condition and results of operations of the Company reflect the assets, liabilities and results of operations of Talos Energy LLC (as our predecessor) prior to the Stone Combination, and do not reflect the assets, liabilities and results of operations of Stone prior to such date. The assets, liabilities and results of operations of Talos Energy LLC have not been, and will not be, restated retrospectively to reflect the historical financial position or results of operations of Stone.

For more information on Talos Energy LLC, our predecessor for financial reporting purposes, see Part IV, Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules — Note 1 — Formation and Basis of Presentation.

7

Business Strategy

We intend to increase stockholder value by growing our production, reserves, cash flow and backlog of future growth opportunities in a capital efficient manner. Our core competencies of deep technical expertise, significant library of seismic data resources and extensive offshore operating experience allow us to successfully manage our asset base and consistently make attractive investments, thereby increasing shareholder value creation over time.

We maintain a large and diverse in-house technical staff focused on geology, geophysics, engineering and other technical disciplines, providing many decades of exploration and production experience in key resource trends that we focus in. Our seismic database, which focuses on the U.S. Gulf of Mexico and offshore Mexico, allows our technical team to apply proprietary seismic reprocessing techniques to evaluate or re-evaluate potential resources across our asset portfolio. Finally, we have deep experience with offshore operations, production operations, safety, facilities, lease acquisitions and negotiations and other staff.

Our strategic business development activities allow us to consistently identify and evaluate new opportunities through a wide range of potential avenues, including government lease sales, joint ventures and acquisitions, among others. We seek to actively participate in government lease sales to identify and acquire attractive leasehold acreage, which in many cases has not been evaluated with the latest reprocessed seismic data, resulting in an opportunity for us to identify previously unknown drilling prospects. Our proven track record through the drillbit frequently attracts potential drilling partners in projects that we operate, while in non-operated projects we leverage our core competencies to independently identify the best investment opportunities, review partner-proposed projects and be a value-added contributor. Finally, our asset acquisition strategy is focused on assets with a geological setting that can benefit from our ability to use our seismic database and technical expertise to re-evaluate and improve the acquired properties. Specifically, our acquisition focus areas target a variety of potential situations and sellers that are currently common in offshore basins, including single asset acquisitions, consolidation of private companies and broader asset package transactions.

Utilizing our core competencies in conjunction with a robust and active business development effort allows us to use the following strategies to increase stockholder value:

Continuously Optimizing our Attractive Existing Asset Base.

We benefit from our proven ability to enhance and extend the life of existing projects within our portfolio. Investments in optimization projects across our asset base aim to stabilize and improve the profile of producing assets by increasing recovery, production and cash flow with typically relatively low investment capital and risk. These projects allow for reinvestment opportunities in exploitation and exploration projects.

Conducting Development and Near-Field Exploration Projects In and Around Our Existing Asset Footprint.

We undertake asset development and exploitation drilling projects in close proximity to our existing assets as well as facilities that we either own or have access to. These projects leverage ongoing operations and existing technical knowledge of the area, often coupled with recent proprietary seismic reprocessing evaluations to provide attractive incremental investment opportunities that could grow reserves, production and cash flow in well-understood areas.

Engage in Exploration Activities to Grow Asset Base and Potentially Unlock Significant New Resources.

We conduct exploration drilling activities across our acreage set with risk-weighted investments that could establish significant new reserves and production. These projects are intended to optimize risk and reward across our deep portfolio of prospective drilling opportunities by finding and developing previously undiscovered resources along existing or emerging geological trends with the most efficient deployment of capital. When successful, exploration drilling activities could organically generate material new assets for the Company.

Properties

United States Gulf of Mexico Properties

Our area of focus in the United States is the Gulf of Mexico deepwater, which is generally considered to comprise water depths over 600 feet. Our strategy is focused in areas characterized by clearly defined infrastructure, well known production history and geological well control, which reduces operational and investment risk. We believe the potential for large discoveries and increasing success rates in the sub-salt and mini-basin lower Pliocene and Miocene plays have resulted in increased industry focus on this area over the last decade.

8

We believe our deepwater operations in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico provide significant potential growth opportunities through our planned drilling program. Through our technical approach of starting with known hydrocarbon systems and applying modern seismic reprocessing techniques, we have generated a substantial inventory of deepwater prospects that we believe are capable of delivering predictable production growth. We focus our exploitation and exploration efforts around our existing infrastructure. This subsea tie-back strategy allows for better project economics and shorter periods between a discovery and production.

As of December 31, 2019, our core properties in the United States are illustrated below:

The following table sets forth certain information regarding our core properties in the United States:

Phoenix — The Phoenix Field is comprised of six operated blocks, which include Green Canyon Blocks 236, 237, 238, 280, 281, and 282, located in the deepwaters offshore Louisiana.

9

There are no conventional fixed or moored production platforms in the field-instead the subsea wells are tied back to a dynamically positioned floating production unit, the HP-I. The HP-I interconnects with the Phoenix Field through a production buoy that can be disconnected if the HP-I cannot maintain its position on station, such as during the approach of a hurricane or in the event of a mechanical problem with the dynamic positioning system. There were 11 wells contributing to production in the Phoenix Field during 2019.

Pompano — The Pompano Field is comprised of eight operated blocks, which include Viosca Knoll Blocks 989 and 990, and Mississippi Canyon Blocks 26, 27, 28, 29, 72 and 73 located in the deepwaters offshore Louisiana. The Pompano Field’s three current subsea systems were tied back to a fixed leg platform with a total of 24 wells contributing to production during 2019.

Ram Powell — The Ram Powell Field is comprised of six operated blocks which include Viosca Knoll Blocks 911, 912, 913, 955, 956 and 957 located in the deepwaters offshore Louisiana. The Ram Powell Field has 10 wells contributing to production that were located on a tension leg platform in Viosca Knoll Block 956 during 2019.

Amberjack — The Amberjack Field is comprised of three operated blocks which include Mississippi Canyon Block 108, 109 and 110. The Amberjack Field had 26 wells contributing to production located on a fixed structure platform in Mississippi Canyon Block 109 during 2019.

Mexico Properties

Our areas of focus in Mexico are blocks located within the Sureste Basin, a prolific proven hydrocarbon province, in the shallow waters off the coast of Mexico’s Veracruz and Tabasco states, respectively. We have executed Production Sharing Contracts (“PSCs”) with the National Hydrocarbons Commission (“CNH”), Mexico’s oil and gas regulator.

Block 2 and 7 PSCs — The PSC includes a cost recovery feature pursuant to which eligible costs in relation to the minimum work program activities are recoverable in-kind at a rate of 125% of costs from future production volumes. Production volumes are allocated in-kind between the consortium and the United Mexican States on a monthly basis based on the contractual value of the hydrocarbons as defined in the PSC. Up to 60% of the monthly contractual value of the hydrocarbons will be allocated to the consortium to recover eligible costs incurred in petroleum activities. Eligible costs exceeding 60% of the current month contractual value of the hydrocarbons will be recoverable in future periods. The amount of royalties will be determined for each type of hydrocarbons (oil, associated natural gas, non-associated natural gas and condensate) using an initial rate, adjusted thereafter for inflation. The remaining value of the hydrocarbons after the allocation for cost recovery and royalties is considered operating profit under the PSC. The allocation of operating profit to the consortium after the allocation for cost recovery and royalties on Blocks 2 and 7 is 44% and 31%, respectively. The profit for oil and gas is determined on a monthly basis using an adjustment mechanism based on the projects rate of return (“ROR”). In the event that the cumulative project’s ROR in any one month exceeds 25%, the barrels of oil allocated to the consortium after cost recovery are reduced on a sliding scale. Once the cumulative project’s internal ROR meets or exceeds 40%, the reduction locks in at a maximum rate. The Hydrocarbons Revenue Law provides that exploration and extraction activities are zero rated for value-added tax (“VAT”) purposes; all other activities are taxed at 16% VAT. The 0% rates only apply to agreements between the United Mexican States and state-owned enterprises or entities, and do not apply to any other agreement executed with third parties, even in the case of exploration and extraction contracts. The income tax rate is 30%.

10

Block 31 PSC — The PSC includes a cost recovery feature pursuant to which eligible costs in relation to the minimum work program activities are recoverable in-kind at a rate of 125% of costs from future production volumes. Production volumes are allocated in-kind between the consortium and the United Mexican States on a monthly basis based on the contractual value of the hydrocarbons as defined in the PSC. Up to 60% of the monthly contractual value of the hydrocarbons will be allocated to the consortium to recover eligible costs incurred in petroleum activities. Eligible costs exceeding 60% of the current month contractual value of the hydrocarbons will be recoverable in future periods. The amount of royalties will be determined for each type of hydrocarbons (oil, associated natural gas, non-associated natural gas and condensate) using an initial rate, adjusted thereafter for inflation. The remaining value of the hydrocarbons after the allocation for cost recovery and royalties is considered operating profit under the PSC. The allocation of operating profit to the consortium after the allocation for cost recovery and royalties on Blocks 31 is 35%. The profit for oil and gas is determined on a monthly basis using an adjustment mechanism based on the projects ROR. In the event that the cumulative project’s ROR in any one month exceeds 25%, the barrels of oil allocated to the consortium after cost recovery are reduced on a sliding scale. Once the cumulative project internal ROR meets or exceeds 40%, the reduction locks in at a maximum rate. The Hydrocarbons Revenue Law provides that exploration and extraction activities are zero rated for VAT purposes; all other activities are taxed at 16% VAT. The 0% rates only apply to agreements between the United Mexican States and state-owned enterprises or entities, and do not apply to any other agreement executed with third parties, even in the case of exploration and extraction contracts. The income tax rate is 30%.

As of December 31, 2019, our core properties in Mexico are presented in the following acreage map:

Block 7 — In July 2017, we completed drilling operations on the offshore Mexico Zama-1 exploration well, reaching a total depth of 13,480 feet. The Zama-1 well is the first offshore exploration well to be drilled in Mexico by the private sector. Well results confirmed the base of the reservoir section, with no penetration of an oil-water contact. The gross oil bearing interval is over 1,100 feet with petrophysical data indicating excellent rock properties and an oil sample with 30 degree API gravity oil. The well has been suspended as a future producer.

In the fourth quarter of 2018, we spud the Zama-2 well, the first appraisal well to be drilled in the field. The Zama-2 well confirmed the results of the original Zama-1 exploration well. In the first quarter of 2019, we drilled the second appraisal penetration, the Zama-2 ST1 well, which successfully tested the northern limits of the reservoir, acquired over 700 feet of whole core to collect detailed rock properties and performed successful well tests in several perforated intervals, reaching an unstimulated and restricted combined production rate of 8.2 MBoepd gross, of which 95% was oil.

11

In the second quarter of 2019, we concluded our three well appraisal of the Zama discovery. The Zama-3 well was drilled to test the southern extent of the reservoir. Well results included the capturing of approximately 717 feet of whole core.

Front-End Engineering & Design work is advancing to optimize the recovery and economic development of the field and allow for the earliest possible initial production date. We have significantly narrowed the number of potential development concepts and the prevailing concept design will be the basis for the development. We were also granted a two-year contract term extension as well as regulatory approvals to allow for exploration activities on additional retained acreage in Block 7, which is separate and incremental to the Zama discovery. See Part IV, Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules — Note 4 — Property, Plant & Equipment for further detail on our Mexico properties.

In September 2018, we and our consortium partners in Block 7 signed a Pre-Unitization Agreement (“PUA”) with Pemex Exploracion y Produccion (“Pemex”) related to certain tracts within the Amoca-Yaxche-03 allocation and the contiguous Block 7 PSC. Both areas are situated in the offshore portion of the Sureste Basin. The two year PUA enables information sharing related to the Zama discovery and potential extension into Pemex’s neighboring block. The PUA has been approved by the Mexican Secretariat of Energy (“SENER”). Our participation interests (“PIs”) in Block 7 is 35%. We are the operator of Block 7.

Block 2 — In September 2018, we entered into a transaction (the “Hokchi Cross Assignment”) with Hokchi Energy, S.A. de C.V. (“Hokchi”), a subsidiary of Pan American Energy LLC (“PAE”), to cross assign 25% PIs in Block 2 and Block 31. Our assignment of a 25% PI in Block 2 to Hokchi closed on December 21, 2018, and Hokchi’s assignment to us closed on May 22, 2019. Following the completion of the Hokchi Cross Assignment, we own a 25% PI in each of Block 2 and Block 31, and Hokchi is the operator of both blocks.

As a result of our evaluation of unproved property located in Block 2 offshore Mexico, specifically future exploratory drilling opportunities, results from the exploratory wells drilled during the second quarter of 2019 and the Block 2 production sharing contract’s expiration date, we recorded a $12.2 million non-cash impairment presented as “Write-down of oil and natural gas properties” on our Consolidated Statements of Operations in Part IV, Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules. Also, as a result of the 2019 drilling program, the consortium has fulfilled the minimum work program requirements for the Block 2 area.

Block 31 — In July 2019, we spud the first project on Block 31, the Xaxamani-2EXP well. This is the first well in the Olmeca project area, which is a shallow oil project set up by the Xaxamani-1 exploratory well drilled in 2003, which logged oil pay in several intervals. Also in the third quarter 2019, PAE drilled the exploratory well, Tolteca-1EXP. A successful drill-stem test on the Xaxamani-2EXP confirmed productivity by producing oil to the surface. The two-well drilling campaign further confirmed the oil and gas discovery. The operator submitted an Appraisal Plan for the Xaxamani discovery in the fourth quarter of 2019. The Xaxamani discovery is located approximately one mile from shore on the Gulf of Mexico shelf. As a result of the 2019 drilling program, pending government approval, the Block 31 consortium has fulfilled the minimum work program requirements. Talos holds a 25% working interest in Block 31.

12

Summary of Reserves

The following table summarizes our estimated proved reserves as of December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017 which are all located in the United States.

Reconciliation of Standardized Measure to PV-10

PV-10 is a non-GAAP financial measure and differs from the standardized measure of discounted future net cash flows, which is the most directly comparable GAAP financial measure. PV-10 is a computation of the standardized measure of discounted future net cash flows on a pre-tax basis. PV-10 is equal to the standardized measure of discounted future net cash flows at the applicable date, before deducting future income taxes, discounted at 10 percent. We believe that the presentation of PV-10 is relevant and useful to investors because it presents the discounted future net cash flows attributable to our estimated net proved reserves prior to taking into account future corporate income taxes, and it is a useful measure for evaluating the relative monetary significance of our oil and natural gas properties. Further, investors may utilize the measure as a basis for comparison of the relative size and value of our reserves to other companies without regard to the specific tax characteristics of such entities. We use this measure when assessing the potential return on investment related to our oil and natural gas properties. PV-10, however, is not a substitute for the standardized measure of discounted future net cash flows. Our PV-10 measure and the standardized measure of discounted future net cash flows do not purport to represent the fair value of our oil and natural gas reserves.

The following table provides a reconciliation of the standardized measure of discounted future net cash flows to PV-10 of our proved reserves at December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017.

13

Changes in Proved Developed Reserves

The following table discloses our estimated changes in proved developed reserves during the year ended December 31, 2019:

Revisions of Previous Estimates — Downward revisions of 11.5 MMBoe are primarily attributable to a decrease in commodity prices and under performance compared to expectations of 6.5 MMBoe in the Phoenix Field, 3.3 MMBoe in the Ram Powell Field and 2.3 MMBoe in the Pompano Field.

Additions — Additions in 2019 of 5.7 MMBoe are primarily attributable to the successful drilling in the EW 305 Field which consists of EW Block 306 A-2 ST2, EW Block 306 A-10 ST2 and the GI Block 82 A-22 wells which were included in our 2019 shallow water drilling campaign.

Acquired — Acquired proved developed reserves of 2.1 MMBoe are attributable to the January 2019 acquisition of an approximate 9.6% non-operated working interest in the Gunflint Field located in the Mississippi Canyon area (the “Gunflint Acquisition”).

Development of Proved Undeveloped Reserves

The following table discloses our estimated proved undeveloped (“PUD”) reserve activities during the year ended December 31, 2019:

Our PUD reserves at December 31, 2019 increased by 7.5 MMBoe, or 21% primarily due to:

Extensions and Discoveries — Additions of 10.1 MMBoe of PUD reserves were the result of field evaluations primarily in the Green Canyon Block 21 for 4.0 MMBoe and Pompano Fields for 4.0 MMBoe.

Revisions of Previous Estimates — Upward revisions of 2.0 MMBoe primarily due to increased PUD allocation based on offset proved developed producing (“PDP”) performance in Phoenix Tornado B-6 reservoir. These revisions were partially offset by the lease expiration of Eugene Island 305 reserves of 1.2 MMBoe.

Acquired — Acquisitions of 0.5 MMBoe of PUD reserves in the MC 948 Block as a result of the Gunflint Acquisition in January 2019.

14

Conversion to Proved Developed Producing — 2018 PUD to proved developed conversions of 5.1 MMBoe is attributable to the Phoenix Field’s Boris 4 well.

We annually review all PUD reserves to ensure an appropriate plan for development exists. Our PUD reserves are required to be converted to proved developed reserves within five years of the date they are first booked as PUD reserves. Future development costs associated with our PUD reserves at December 31, 2019 totaled approximately $501.7 million, primarily attributable the Phoenix Field’s $340.4 million future development costs. When considering capital expenditures associated with other exploration projects and abandonment obligations, we expect to fund the development of PUD reserves using cash flows from operations and, if needed, availability under the Company’s senior reserve-based revolving credit facility (the “Bank Credit Facility”), in each future annual period prior to the five year expiration. Our 2020 drilling program includes development of PUD reserves, and the conversion rate may not be uniform due to obligatory wells, newly acquired PUD reserves and production performance targets.

 Internal Controls over Reserve Estimates and Reserve Estimation Procedures

At December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017, proved oil, natural gas and NGL reserves attributable to our net interests in oil and natural gas properties were estimated and compiled for reporting purposes by our reservoir engineers and audited by Netherland, Sewell & Associates, Inc. (“NSAI”), independent petroleum engineers and geologists, as described in further detail below.

Our policies regarding internal controls over the determination of reserves estimates require reserves quantities, reserves categorization, future producing rates, future net revenue and the present value of such future net revenue prepared using the definitions set forth in Regulation S-X, Rule 4-10(a) and subsequent SEC staff interpretations and guidance. These internal controls, which are intended to ensure reliability of our reserves estimations, include, but are not limited to, the following:

Because these estimates depend on many assumptions, any or all of which may differ substantially from actual results, reserve estimates may be different from the quantities of oil, natural gas and NGLs that are ultimately recovered.

15

During the reserves audit, NSAI did not independently verify the accuracy and completeness of information and data furnished by us with respect to ownership interests, oil, natural gas and NGL production, well test data, historical costs of operation and development, product prices or any agreements relating to current and future operations of the fields and sales of production. However, if in the course of the examination something came to the attention of NSAI that brought into question the validity or sufficiency of any such information or data, NSAI did not rely on such information or data until it had satisfactorily resolved its questions relating thereto or had independently verified such information or data. When compared on a well by well basis, some of our estimates are greater and some are less than the estimates of NSAI. Given the inherent uncertainties and judgments that go into estimating proved reserves, differences between internal and external estimates are to be expected. NSAI determined that its estimates of reserves have been prepared in accordance with the definitions and regulations of the SEC, including the criteria of “reasonable certainty,” as it pertains to expectations about the recoverability of reserves in future years, under existing economic and operating conditions, consistent with the definition in Rule 4-10(a)(24) of Regulation S-X. NSAI issued unqualified audit opinions on our reserves as of December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017 based upon its evaluations. NSAI concluded that our estimates of reserves were, in the aggregate, reasonable and have been prepared in accordance with Standards Pertaining to the Estimating and Auditing of Oil and Gas Reserves Information promulgated by the SPEE. The NSAI reports are filed as exhibits this report.

Technologies Used in Reserve Estimation

The SEC’s reserves rules allow the use of techniques that have been proved effective by actual production from projects in the same reservoir or an analogous reservoir or by other evidence using reliable technology that establishes reasonable certainty. The term “reasonable certainty” implies a high degree of confidence that the quantities of oil, natural gas and/or NGLs actually recovered will equal or exceed the estimate. To achieve reasonable certainty, our internal reservoir engineers employed technologies that have been demonstrated to yield results with consistency and repeatability. The technologies and economic data used in the estimation of our proved reserves include, but are not limited to, well logs, geologic maps, seismic data, well test data, production data, historical price and cost information and property ownership interests. The accuracy of the estimates of our reserves is a function of:

Qualifications of Primary Internal Engineer

Our Director of Reserves is the technical person primarily responsible for overseeing the preparation of our internal reserve estimates and for coordinating reserve audits conducted by NSAI. He has over 45 years of industry experience with positions of increasing responsibility, including 37 years as a reserves evaluator or manager. His further professional qualifications include a State of Texas Professional Engineering License, extensive internal and external reserve training and asset evaluation. In addition, he is an active participant in industry reserve seminars and professional industry groups, and has been a member of the Society of Petroleum Engineers (“SPE”) for over 45 years. He reports directly to our Vice President of Corporate Development.

16

Drilling Activity

The following table sets forth our drilling activity during the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017:

As of December 31, 2019, we had wells actively drilling or completing and wells suspended or awaiting completion, as follows:

Productive Wells

The number of our productive wells is as follows for the year ended December 31, 2019:

Acreage

Gross and net developed and undeveloped acreage is as follows for the year ended December 31, 2019:

17

Undeveloped acreage is considered to be those leased acres on which wells have not been drilled or completed to a point that would permit the production of commercial quantities of oil and natural gas regardless of whether or not such acreage contains proved reserves. Included within undeveloped acreage are those leased acres (held by production under the terms of a lease) that are not within the spacing unit containing, or acreage assigned to, the productive well holding such lease. The terms of our leases on undeveloped acreage as of December 31, 2019 are scheduled to expire as shown in the table below (the terms of which may be extended by drilling and production operations):

Crude Oil, Natural Gas and NGL Production, Prices and Production Costs

Our production volumes, average sales prices and average production costs are as follows:

18

Crude Oil, Natural Gas and NGL Production, Prices and Production Costs—Significant Fields

Phoenix Field

The following table sets forth certain information regarding our production volumes, average sales prices and average production costs for the Phoenix Field, which consisted of 15% or more of our total estimated proved reserves at December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017:

Pompano Field

The following table sets forth certain information regarding our production volumes, average sales prices and average production costs for the Pompano Field, which consisted of 15% or more of our total estimated proved reserves at December 31, 2019 and 2018.

Expenditures and Costs Incurred

For information on property development, exploration and acquisition costs, see Part IV, Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules — Note 15 — Supplemental Oil and Gas Disclosures (Unaudited).

19

Title to Properties

We believe that we have satisfactory title to our oil and natural gas properties in accordance with generally accepted industry standards. Individual properties may be subject to burdens such as royalties, overriding royalties, and carried, net profits, working and other outstanding interests customary in the industry. In addition, interests may be subject to obligations or duties under applicable laws or burdens such as production payments, ordinary course liens incidental to operating agreements and for current taxes and development obligations under oil and natural gas leases. As is customary in the industry in the case of undeveloped properties, often limited investigation of record title is made at the time of acquisition. Title search investigations are made prior to the consummation of an acquisition of producing properties and before commencement of drilling operations on undeveloped properties. To the extent title opinions or other investigations reflect defects affecting such undeveloped properties, we are typically responsible for curing any such title defects at our expense.

Commodity Price Risks and Price Risk Management Activities

Production from our properties is marketed using methods that are consistent with industry practices. Sales prices for oil and natural gas production are negotiated based on factors normally considered in the industry, such as an index or spot price, price regulations, distance from the well to the pipeline, commodity quality and prevailing supply and demand conditions. We enter into derivative contracts on our oil and natural gas production primarily to stabilize cash flows and reduce the risk and financial impact of downward commodity price movements on commodity sales. For additional information regarding our commodity price risk and commodity derivative instruments, see Part II, Item 7A — Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.

Significant Customers

Oil and natural gas companies spend capital on exploration, drilling and production operations expenditures, the amount of which is generally dependent on the prevailing view of future oil and natural gas prices which are subject to many external factors which may contribute to significant volatility in future prices. We market substantially all of our oil, natural gas and NGL production from the properties we operate and those we do not operate. Our customers consist primarily of major oil and gas companies, well-established oil and pipeline companies and independent oil and natural gas producers and suppliers. We perform ongoing credit evaluations of our customers and provide allowances for probable credit losses when necessary. For the year ended December 31, 2019, 58% and 28% of our oil, natural gas and NGL revenues were attributable to Shell Trading (US) Company and Phillips 66, respectively, which are the customers that individually represented 10% or more of our oil, natural gas and NGL revenues.

Competitive Conditions

The oil and natural gas business is highly competitive in the exploration for and acquisition of reserves, the acquisition of oil and natural gas leases, equipment and personnel required to find and produce reserves and in the gathering and marketing of oil, natural gas and NGLs. We compete with large integrated oil and natural gas companies as well as independent exploration and production companies. Certain of our competitors may have significantly more financial or other resources available to them. In addition, certain of the larger integrated companies may be better able to respond to industry changes, including price fluctuation, oil and natural gas demand and governmental regulations.

However, we believe our high quality oil-weighted production base, proven expertise in utilizing seismic technology to identify, evaluate and develop exploitation and exploration opportunities, balanced mix of assets in the Gulf of Mexico deep and shallow waters and significant operating control give us a strong competitive position relative to many of our competitors.

Seasonality of Business

Weather conditions affect the demand for, and prices of, oil and natural gas. Due to these seasonal fluctuations, our results of operations for individual quarterly periods may not be indicative of the results that may be realized on an annual basis. Generally, but not always, the demand for gas decreases during the summer months and increases during the winter months. Seasonal anomalies such as mild winters or hot summers may impact general seasonal changes in demand.

20

Insurance Matters

Our oil and natural gas operations are subject to risks incident to the operation of oil and gas wells, including but not limited to uncontrolled flows of oil, gas, brine or well fluids into the environment, blowouts, cratering, mechanical difficulties, fires, explosions or other physical damage, pollution or other risks, any of which could result in substantial losses to us. In addition, our oil and natural gas properties are located in the Gulf of Mexico, which makes us more vulnerable to tropical storms and hurricanes. These hazards can cause personal injury or loss of life, severe damage to and destruction of property and equipment, pollution or environmental damage and the suspension of operations. Damages arising from such occurrences may result in lawsuits asserting large claims. Insurance may not be sufficient or effective under all circumstances or against all hazards to which we may be subject. A successful claim for which we are not fully insured could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flow. Although we obtain insurance against some of these risks, we cannot insure against all possible losses. As a result, any damage or loss not covered by insurance could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flow.

We have insurance policies to cover some of our risk of loss associated with our operations, and we maintain the amount of insurance we believe is prudent. However, not all of our business activities can be insured at the levels we desire because of either limited market availability or unfavorable economics (limited coverage for the underlying cost).

Our general property damage insurance provides varying ranges of coverage based upon several factors, including well counts and the cost of replacement facilities. Our general liability insurance program provides a limit of $500 million for each occurrence and in the aggregate, and includes varying deductibles. Our Offshore Pollution Act insurance is subject to a maximum of up to $150 million for each occurrence and in the aggregate, including a $100,000 retention. Coverage is provided for damage to our assets resulting from a named U.S. Gulf of Mexico windstorm; however, such coverage is subject to a maximum of $170 million per named windstorm and in the aggregate, and is also subject to a maximum of $35 million per occurrence retention. We separately maintain an operators extra expense policy with additional coverage for an amount up to $500 million for U.S. Gulf of Mexico deepwater drilling wells, $150 million for U.S. Gulf of Mexico shelf drilling wells, $75 million for U.S. Gulf of Mexico producing and shut-in wells, $75 million for drilling and workover in inland waters and $25 million for drilling and workover in onshore fields that would cover costs involved in making a well safe after a blow-out or getting the well under control; re-drilling a well to the depth reached prior to the well being out of control or blown out; costs for plugging and abandoning the well; and costs for clean-up and containment and for damages caused by contamination and pollution. For our Mexico insurance policies, we maintain $250 million in operators extra expense coverage for operations and $500 million per occurrence and aggregate limit for general liability.

We may increase or decrease insurance coverage around our key strategic assets, including potentially purchasing catastrophic bond instruments. Our highest value assets, which are located in the Phoenix Field, produce through the HP-I floating production system, which has the capability to disconnect and move away in the event of a storm, mitigating the risk of property damage.

We customarily have reciprocal agreements with our customers and vendors in which each contracting party is responsible for its respective personnel for liability related to work performed for us. Under these agreements, we generally are indemnified against third party claims related to the injury or death of our customers’ or vendors’ personnel, subject to the application of various states’ laws.

21

Government Regulation

Exploration and development and the production and sale of oil, natural gas and NGLs are subject to extensive federal, state, local and foreign laws and regulations. An overview of these legal requirements is set forth below. Historically, our compliance with existing requirements has not had a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, current regulatory requirements may change, currently unforeseen environmental incidents may occur or past non-compliance with environmental laws or regulations may be discovered. Because such laws and regulations are frequently amended or reinterpreted, we are unable to predict the future cost or impact of complying with such laws. Although the regulatory burden on the oil and natural gas industry increases our cost of doing business and, consequently, affects our profitability, these burdens generally do not affect us any differently or to any greater or lesser extent than they affect others in our industry with similar types, quantities and locations of production.

General Overview — Our oil and natural gas operations are subject to various federal, state, local and foreign laws and regulations. Generally speaking, these regulations relate to matters that include, but are not limited to:

22

Outer Continental Shelf (“OCS”) Regulation — Our operations on federal oil and natural gas leases in the United States Gulf of Mexico are subject to regulation by the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (“BSEE”), the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (“BOEM”) and the Office of Natural Resources Revenue (“ONRR”), which are all agencies of the U.S. Department of the Interior (“DOI”). These leases contain relatively standardized terms and require compliance with detailed BSEE and BOEM regulations and orders issued pursuant to various federal laws, including the federal Outer Continental Shelf Lands Acts (“OCSLA”). These laws and regulations are subject to change, and many new requirements, including those related to safety, permitting and performance, have been imposed by BSEE and BOEM subsequent to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon incident. For offshore operations, lessees must obtain BOEM approval for exploration, development and production plans prior to the commencement of such operations. In addition to permits required from other agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”), lessees must obtain a permit from BSEE prior to the commencement of drilling and comply with regulations governing, among other things, engineering and construction specifications for production facilities, safety procedures, P&A of wells on the OCS, calculation of royalty payments and the valuation of production for this purpose, and removal of facilities.

The trend in the United States over the past decade has been for these governmental agencies to continue to evaluate and as necessary develop and implement new, more restrictive requirements, although in recent years under the Trump Administration there have been actions seeking to mitigate certain of those more rigorous standards. For example, in 2016, BSEE under the Obama Administration published a final rule on well control that, among other things, imposed rigorous standards relating to the design, operation and maintenance of blow-out preventers, real-time monitoring of deepwater, high temperature, high pressure drilling activities, and enhanced reporting requirements. Pursuant to President Trump’s Executive Orders dated March 28, 2017, and April 28, 2017 (the “Executive Orders”), BSEE initiated a review of the well control regulations to determine whether the rules are consistent with the stated policy of encouraging energy exploration and production, while ensuring that any such activity is safe and environmentally responsible. One consequence of this review is that on May 15, 2019, BSEE published final revisions to the existing 2016 rule on well control that became effective on July 15, 2019 and, among other things, eliminated the requirement for a BSEE-approved verification organization for third parties providing certifications of certain critical well control functions. In another example, BSEE published a final rule in September 2018 amending its production safety systems regulations, which includes the imposition of operational and design standards and the removal of the requirement of offshore operators to certify through an independent third party that their critical safety and pollution prevention equipment (e.g. subsea safety equipment, including blowout preventers) is operational and functioning as designed in the most extreme conditions. There exists the possibility that certain of these recent mitigatory actions under the Trump Administration could be withdrawn or revised in the future as a result of litigation or by a different presidential administration to impose or re-implement more stringent standards.

Compliance with these regulatory actions, or any new laws, regulations or other legal initiatives, whether under the Trump Administration or another administration could result in significant costs, including increased capital expenditures and operating costs, and could adversely impact our business. In addition, under certain circumstances, BSEE may require our operations on federal leases to be suspended or terminated. Any such suspension or termination could adversely affect our financial condition and operations.

Furthermore, hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico can have a significant impact on oil and natural gas operations. The effects from past hurricanes have included structural damage to fixed production facilities, semi-submersibles and jack-up drilling rigs. BOEM and BSEE continue to be concerned about the loss of these facilities and rigs as well as the potential for catastrophic damage to key infrastructure and the resultant pollution from future storms. In an effort to reduce the potential for future damage, BOEM and BSEE have periodically issued guidance aimed at improving platform survivability by taking into account environmental and oceanic conditions in the design of platforms and related structures. It is possible that similar, if not more stringent, requirements will be issued by BOEM and BSEE for future hurricane seasons. New requirements, if any, could increase our operating costs and/or capital expenditures.

23

In addition, in order to cover the various decommissioning obligations of leases , rights of way (“ROWs”) and rights of use and easements (“RUEs”) on the OCS, BOEM generally requires that lessees post some form of acceptable financial assurances that such obligations will be met, such as surety bonds. The cost of such bonds or other financial assurance can be substantial, and we can provide no assurance that we can continue to obtain bonds or other surety in all cases. For example, in the Notice to Lessees and Operators (“NTL”) No. 2016-N01 (the “2016 NTL”), BOEM under the Obama Administration announced updated financial assurance and risk management requirements for offshore leases. The 2016 NTL details procedures to determine a lessee’s ability to carry out its lease obligations—primarily the decommissioning of facilities—and whether to require lessees to furnish additional financial assurance to meet BOEM’s estimate of the lessees’ decommissioning obligations. The 2016 NTL supersedes the agency’s prior practice of allowing lessees of a certain net worth to waive the need for supplemental bonds and provides updated criteria for determining a lessee’s ability to self-insure only a small portion of its OCS liabilities based upon the lessee’s financial capacity and financial strength. The 2016 NTL also allows lessees to meet their additional financial security requirements pursuant to an individually approved tailored plan, whereby a lessee and BOEM agree to set a timeframe for the posting of additional financial assurances. The 2016 NTL became effective in September 2016. Following the effectiveness of the 2016 NTL, we received orders from BOEM in late 2016 to provide additional financial assurance in material amounts relating to our OCS properties (the “BOEM 2016 Orders”). We entered into discussions with BOEM regarding the requested additional financial security and submitted a proposed tailored plan for the posting of additional financial security to the agency for review. However, BOEM under the Trump Administration has indefinitely delayed beyond June 30, 2017 implementation of the 2016 NTL, has rescinded the BOEM 2016 Orders while BOEM reviews its financial assurance program and, to date, has taken no action with respect to our previously submitted proposed tailored plan.

We remain in active discussions with our government regulators and our industry peers with regard to any future rule making and financial assurance requirements. BOEM is continuing to review and reconsider its financial assurance program and thus the amounts of any financial assurance that may be demanded by the agency is uncertain at this time. Notwithstanding the 2016 NTL, BOEM may also bolster its financial assurance requirements mandated by rule for all companies operating in federal waters. BOEM, whether under the Trump Administration or a future administration, could also make new demands for additional financial assurance in material amounts in the event the agency chooses to implement the 2016 NTL. Such demands could exceed our ability to provide any additional financial assurance that may be required by BOEM in the future. The future cost of compliance with our existing supplemental bonding requirements, including the obligations imposed upon us as a result of the 2016 NTL, to the extent implemented, as well as any other future BOEM directives, or any other changes to BOEM’s rules applicable to our or our subsidiaries’ properties, could materially and adversely affect our financial condition, cash flows, and results of operations.

Regulation in Shallow Waters Off the Coast of Mexico — Our operations on oil and natural gas blocks in shallow waters off the coast of Mexico’s Veracruz and Tabasco states, and in other Mexican offshore areas where we are assessing other exploration opportunities, are subject to regulation by SENER, the CNH and other Mexican regulatory bodies. The CNH is responsible for, among other things, overseeing the tender procedures for awarding contracts for the exploration and production of oil and natural gas in Mexican waters, managing and supervising contracts that have been awarded, and approving exploration and production plans. The PSCs that we and our consortium partners have entered into for the development of these acreages contain terms that impose on us the duty to comply with various laws and regulations. These laws and regulations govern, among other things, the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons (including certain national content requirements), the treatment, conveyance, marketing, transport and storage of petroleum, and requirements for industrial safety, operational security, and facility decommissioning. Failure to comply can result in the imposition of monetary penalties, revocation of permits, rescission of the relevant PSC, suspension of operations, and ordered decommissioning of offshore facilities and systems. The laws and regulations governing activities in the Mexican energy sector are relatively new, having been significantly reformed in 2013, and the legal regulatory framework continues to evolve as SENER, the CNH and other Mexican regulatory bodies issue new regulations and guidance. Such regulations are subject to change, and it is possible that SENER, the CNH or other Mexican regulatory bodies may impose new or revised requirements that could increase our operating costs and/or capital expenditures for operations in Mexican offshore waters.

24

Environmental and Occupational Safety and Health Regulations

We are subject to various federal, state, local and foreign regulations concerning occupational safety and health as well as the discharge of materials into, and the protection of, the environment. Environmental laws and regulations relate to, among other things:

Based on regulatory trends and increasingly stringent laws, our capital expenditures and operating expenses related to the protection of the environment and safety and health compliance have increased over the years and it is possible such expenses will continue to increase. We cannot predict with any reasonable degree of certainty our future exposure concerning such matters and the cost of compliance could be significant. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations may result in the assessment of administrative, civil and criminal penalties, the imposition of remedial obligations, natural resource damages or the issuance of injunctive relief (including orders to cease operations). Both onshore and offshore drilling in certain areas has been opposed by environmental groups and, in certain areas, has been restricted. Additionally, due primarily to the threat of climate change arising from greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions, certain candidates seeking the office of President of the United States in 2020 have pledged to take actions to ban new mineral leases on federal properties, including offshore leases on the OCS. Moreover, some environmental laws and regulations may impose strict liability, which could subject us to liability for conduct that was lawful at the time it occurred or conduct or conditions caused by prior operators or third parties. To the extent laws are enacted or other governmental action is taken that prohibits or restricts onshore or offshore drilling or imposes environmental protection requirements that result in increased costs to the oil and gas industry in general, our business and financial results could be adversely affected.

We expect to continue making expenditures on a regular basis relating to environmental compliance. We maintain insurance coverage for spills, pollution and certain other environmental risks, although we are not fully insured against all such risks. Our insurance coverage provides for the reimbursement to us of certain costs incurred for the containment and clean-up of materials that may be suddenly and accidentally released in the course of our operations, but such insurance does not fully insure against pollution and similar environmental risks. We do not anticipate that we will be required under current environmental laws and regulations to expend amounts that will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or our results of operations. However, since environmental costs and liabilities are inherent in our operations and in the operations of companies engaged in similar businesses and since regulatory requirements frequently change and may become more stringent, there can be no assurance that material costs and liabilities will not be incurred in the future. Such costs may result in increased costs of operations and acquisitions and decreased production.

Water Discharges — Our discharges into waters of the United States are limited by the federal Clean Water Act (“CWA”) and analogous state laws. The CWA prohibits any discharge of pollutants, including spills and leaks of oil and other substances, into waters of the United States, except in compliance with permits issued by federal and state governmental agencies. These discharge permits also include monitoring and reporting obligations. Failure to comply with the CWA, including discharge limits set by permits issued pursuant to the CWA, may also result in administrative, civil or criminal enforcement actions. Violations of the CWA can result in suspension, debarment or the imposition of statutory disability, each of which prevents companies and individuals from participating in government contracts and receiving some non-procurement government benefits. The CWA also requires the preparation of oil spill response plans and spill prevention, control and countermeasure plans.

25

Oil Pollution Act — The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (“OPA”) holds owners and operators of offshore oil production or handling facilities, including the lessee or permittee of the area where an offshore facility is located, strictly liable for the costs of removing oil discharged into waters of the United States and for certain damages from such spills. OPA assigns joint and several strict liability, without regard to fault, to each liable party for all containment and oil removal costs and a variety of public and private damages including, but not limited to, the costs of responding to a release of oil, natural resource damages and economic damages suffered by persons adversely affected by an oil spill. Although defenses exist to the liability imposed by OPA, they are limited. OPA’s damages liability cap is currently $137.7 million; however, a party cannot take advantage of liability limits if a spill was caused by gross negligence or willful misconduct, resulted from violation of a federal safety, construction or operating regulation, or if the party failed to report a spill or cooperate fully in the clean-up. OPA also requires responsible parties to maintain evidence of financial responsibility in prescribed amounts. OPA currently requires a minimum financial responsibility demonstration of between $35 million to $150 million, based on a worst case oil spill discharge volume, for companies operating on the OCS, although BOEM may increase this amount in certain situations, but in no event greater than $150 million. From time to time, the United States Congress has proposed, but not adopted, amendments to OPA raising the financial responsibility requirements. If OPA is amended to increase the minimum level of financial responsibility, we may experience difficulty in providing financial assurances sufficient to comply with this requirement. We cannot predict at this time whether OPA will be amended or whether the level of financial responsibility required for companies operating on the OCS will be increased. In any event, if an oil discharge or substantial threat of discharge were to occur, we may be liable for costs and damages, which costs and liabilities could be material to our results of operations and financial position.

National Environmental Policy Act — The National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) requires federal agencies, including the DOI, to consider the impacts their actions have on the human environment, and to prepare detailed statements for major federal actions having the potential to significantly impact the environment. These requirements can lead to additional costs and delays in permitting for operators as the DOI or its bureaus may need to prepare Environmental Assessments (“EA”) and more detailed Environmental Impact Statements (“EIS”) in support of its leasing and other activities that have the potential to significantly affect the quality of the environment. If the EA indicates that no significant impact is likely, then the agency can release a finding of no significant impact and carry on with the proposed action. Otherwise, the agency must then conduct a full-scale EIS. The NEPA process involves public input through comment. These comments, as well as the agency’s analysis of the proposed project, can result in changes to the nature of a proposed project, such as by limiting the scope of the project or requiring resource-specific mitigation. The adequacy of the agency’s NEPA process can be challenged in federal court by process participants. This process may result in delaying the permitting and development of projects, and result in increased costs.

Endangered Species Act — The Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) restricts activities that may affect federally identified endangered and threatened species or their habitats. Additionally, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (“MBTA”) implements various treaties and conventions between the United States and certain other nations for the protection of migratory birds. Under the MBTA, the taking, killing or possessing of migratory birds is unlawful without a permit. The Marine Mammal Protection Act (“MMPA”) similarly prohibits the taking of marine mammals without authorization. Additionally, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) may make determinations on the listing of species as threatened or endangered under the ESA and litigation with respect to the listing or non-listing of certain species may result in more fulsome protections for non-protected or lesser-protected species. We conduct operations on oil and natural gas leases in areas where certain species that are protected by the ESA, MBTA and MMPA are known to exist and where other species that could potentially be protected under these statutes are known to exist. The FWS or the National Marine Fisheries Service may designate critical habitat that it believes is necessary for survival of a threatened or endangered species. A critical habitat designation could result in further material restrictions to federal land use and may materially delay or prohibit access to protected areas for oil and natural gas development. These statutes may result in operating restrictions or a temporary, seasonal or permanent ban in affected areas.

26

Hazardous Substances and Waste Management — The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) generally regulates the disposal of solid and hazardous wastes and imposes certain environmental cleanup obligations. Although RCRA specifically excludes from the definition of hazardous waste “drilling fluids, produced waters and other wastes associated with the exploration, development or production of crude oil, natural gas or geothermal energy,” the EPA and state agencies may regulate these wastes as solid wastes. However, it is possible that certain oil and natural gas drilling and production wastes now classified as non-hazardous could be classified as hazardous wastes in the future. For example, in response to a federal consent decree issued in 2016, the EPA was required during 2019 to determine whether certain Subtitle D criteria regulations require revision in a manner that could result in oil and natural gas wastes being regulated as RCRA hazardous wastes. In April 2019, the EPA made a determination that such revision of the regulations was unnecessary at this time. Any future loss of the RCRA exclusion for drilling fluids, produced waters and related wastes could result in increased costs to manage and dispose of generated wastes. Also, ordinary industrial wastes, such as paint wastes, waste solvents, laboratory wastes and waste oils, may be regulated as hazardous waste.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act — Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) and comparable state laws impose liability, without regard to fault or the legality of the original conduct, on persons that are considered to have contributed to the release of a “hazardous substance” into the environment. Such “responsible persons” may be subject to joint and several liability under CERCLA for the costs of cleaning up the hazardous substances that have been released into the environment and for damages to natural resources. Further, it is not uncommon for coastal landowners or other third parties to file claims for personal injury and property damage allegedly caused by the hazardous substances released into the environment.

Air Emissions — The Clean Air Act (“CAA”) and comparable state statutes restrict the emission of air pollutants and affect both onshore and offshore oil and natural gas operations. New facilities may be required to obtain separate construction and operating permits before construction work can begin or operations may start, and existing facilities may be required to incur capital costs in order to remain in compliance. Also, the EPA has developed, and continues to develop, more stringent regulations governing emissions of toxic air pollutants, and is considering the regulation of additional air pollutants and air pollutant parameters. For example, in 2015, the EPA lowered the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (“NAAQS”) for ozone from 75 to 70 parts per billion. State implementation of the revised NAAQS could result in stricter permitting requirements, delay or prohibit our ability to obtain such permits, and result in increased expenditures for pollution control equipment, the costs of which could be significant.

Worker Health and Safety — The Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSHA”) and comparable state statutes regulate the protection of the health and safety of workers. The OSHA hazard communication standard requires maintenance of information about hazardous materials used or produced in operations and provision of such information to employees. Other OSHA standards regulate specific worker safety aspects of our operations. Failure to comply with OSHA requirements can lead to the imposition of penalties.

Climate Change — Climate change continues to attract considerable public, political and scientific attention. As a result, numerous regulatory initiatives have been made, and are likely to continue to be made, at the international, national, regional and state levels of government to monitor and limit existing emissions of GHGs as well as to restrict or eliminate such future emissions. These regulatory efforts have included consideration of cap-and-trade programs, carbon taxes, GHG reporting and tracking programs, and regulations that directly limit GHG emissions from certain sources. Additionally, the threat of climate change has resulted in increasing political, litigation and financial risks associated with the production of fossil fuels and emission of GHGs. The adoption and implementation of any federal or state legislation, regulations or executive orders or the occurrence of any litigation or financial developments that impose more stringent requirements or bans on GHG-emitting production activities or locations where such production activities may occur, impose liabilities for past conduct relating to GHG-emitting production activities, or limit or eliminate sources of financing for on-going production operations could require us to incur increased costs of compliance or costs of consuming, and thereby reduce demand for, oil and natural gas that we produce. See "Item 1A. Risk Factors – Our operations are subject to various risks that could result in increased operating costs, limit the areas in which oil and natural gas production may occur, and reduced demand for the oil and natural gas that we produce" for additional information relating to risks arising out of climate change including the emission of GHGs.

27

Environmental Regulation in Shallow Waters Off the Coast of Mexico — Our operations on oil and natural gas blocks in shallow waters off the coast of Mexico’s Veracruz and Tabasco states, and in other Mexican offshore areas where we are assessing other exploration opportunities, are subject to regulation by the Mexican National Agency of Industrial Safety and Environmental Protection of the Hydrocarbons Sector (“ASEA”). We must obtain ASEA-issued permits and comply with ASEA regulations governing hydrocarbon activities, including requirements for environmental impact and risk assessments, industrial safety, waste management, water and air emissions, operational security, and facility decommissioning. Failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations can result in the imposition of monetary penalties, revocation of permits, suspension of operations, and ordered decommissioning of offshore facilities and systems. The laws and regulations governing the protection of health, safety, and the environment from activities in the Mexican energy sector are relatively new, having been significantly reformed in 2013 and 2014, and the legal regulatory framework continues to evolve as ASEA and other Mexican regulatory bodies issue new regulations and guidance. Such regulations are subject to change, and it is possible that ASEA or other Mexican regulatory bodies may impose new or revised requirements that could increase our operating costs and/or capital expenditures for operations in Mexican offshore waters. For example, in January 2019, the ASEA published the “General Administrative Provisions on the Guidelines for the Design, Construction, Pre-start, Maintenance, Closing, Dismantling and Abandonment of the Facilities and Transfer Operations associated with the Transportation and/or Distribution of Hydrocarbons and/or Oil Products activities, by means other than Pipelines.” These legal provisions apply to permit holders in charge of the transportation or distribution of hydrocarbons and oil products by means other than pipelines, such as tank trucks, tank vessels and/or by railroad, in connection with the transfer, racking, loading, discharge, reception or delivery of such hydrocarbons and oil products. The permit holders must comply with requirements relating to insurance, facility construction and design, law compliance, and risk analysis scenarios.

Under the PSCs, we are jointly and severally liable for the performance of all obligations under the PSCs, including exploration, appraisal, extraction, and abandonment activities and compliance with all environmental regulations, and failure to perform such obligations could result in contractual rescission of the PSCs.

Federal Regulation of Sales and Transportation of Natural Gas — Our sales of natural gas are affected directly or indirectly by the availability, terms and cost of natural gas transportation. The prices and terms for access to pipeline transportation of natural gas are subject to extensive federal and state regulation. The transportation and sale for resale of natural gas in interstate commerce is regulated primarily under the Natural Gas Act of 1938 (“NGA”) and the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (“NGPA”) and by regulations and orders promulgated under the NGA and/or NGPA by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”). In certain limited circumstances, intrastate transportation and wholesale sales of natural gas may also be affected directly or indirectly by laws enacted by the United States Congress and by FERC regulations. However, certain offshore gathering and transportation services we rely upon are subject to limited FERC regulation and are regulated by the states.

Pursuant to authority delegated to it by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (“EPAct 2005”), FERC promulgated anti-manipulation regulations establishing violation enforcement mechanisms that make it unlawful for any entity, directly or indirectly, in connection with the purchase or sale of natural gas or the purchase or sale of transportation services subject to the jurisdiction of FERC to (i) use or employ any device, scheme or artifice to defraud, (ii) make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or (iii) engage in any act, practice or course of business that operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any entity. The EPAct 2005 also amended the NGA and the NGPA to give FERC authority to impose civil penalties for violations of these statutes and regulations, up to $1,291,894 per violation, per day for 2019 (this amount is adjusted annually for inflation). FERC may also order disgorgement of profits and corrective action. The anti-market manipulation rule does not apply to activities that relate only to intrastate or other non-jurisdictional sales or gathering, but does apply to activities of natural gas pipelines and storage companies that provide interstate services, as well as otherwise non-jurisdictional entities to the extent the activities are conducted “in connection with” natural gas sales, purchases or transportation subject to FERC jurisdiction, which includes annual reporting requirements for entities that purchase or sell a certain volume of natural gas in a given calendar year. We believe, however, that neither the EPAct 2005 nor the regulations promulgated by FERC as a result of the EPAct 2005 will affect us in a way that materially differs from the way they affect other natural gas producers, gatherers and marketers with which we compete.

28

Our sales of oil and natural gas are also subject to market manipulation and anti-disruptive requirements under the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) as amended by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”), and regulations promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “CFTC”). The CFTC prohibits any person from manipulating or attempting to manipulate the price of any commodity in interstate commerce or futures on such commodity. The CEA also prohibits knowingly delivering or causing to be delivered false or misleading or knowingly inaccurate reports concerning market information or conditions that affect or tend to affect the price of a commodity.

The current statutory and regulatory framework governing interstate natural gas transactions is subject to change in the future, and the nature of such changes is impossible to predict. We cannot predict whether new legislation to regulate natural gas might be proposed, what proposals, if any, might actually be enacted by the United States Congress, the applicable federal agencies, or the various state legislatures, and what effect, if any, the proposals might have on our operations. The natural gas industry historically has been very heavily regulated. In the past, the federal government regulated the prices at which natural gas could be sold. Since 1978, various federal laws have been enacted that have resulted in the complete removal of all price and non-price controls for sales of domestic natural gas sold in “first sales,” which include all of our sales of our own production. However, we are subject to reporting requirements imposed by FERC. There is always some risk, however, that the United States Congress may reenact price controls in the future. Changes in law and to FERC policies and regulations may adversely affect the availability and reliability of firm and/or interruptible transportation service on interstate pipelines or impose additional reporting or other requirements upon our operations, and we cannot predict what future action FERC will take. Therefore, there is no assurance that the current regulatory approach recently pursued by FERC and the United States Congress will continue. We do not believe, however, that any regulatory changes will affect us in a way that materially differs from the way they will affect other natural gas producers, gatherers and marketers with which we compete.

Federal Regulation of Sales and Transportation of Crude Oil — FERC regulates the interstate pipeline of crude oil, petroleum products, and other liquids, such as NGLs. Our sales of crude oil and condensate are currently not regulated and are made at negotiated prices. There is always some risk, however, that the United States Congress may reenact crude oil, petroleum products and NGL price controls in the future. We cannot predict whether new legislation to regulate crude oil, or the prices charged for crude oil might be proposed, what proposals, if any, might actually be enacted by the United States Congress or the various state legislatures and what effect, if any, the proposals might have on our operations. Additionally, such sales may be subject to certain state, and potentially federal, reporting requirements.

Our ability to transport and sell such products is dependent on pipelines whose rates, terms and conditions of service are subject to FERC jurisdiction under the Interstate Commerce Act (“ICA”), and intrastate oil pipeline transportation rates are subject to regulation by state regulatory commissions. Certain regulations implemented by FERC in recent years and certain pending rulemaking and other proceedings could result in an increase in the cost of transportation service on certain petroleum products pipelines. The basis for intrastate oil pipeline regulation, and the degree of regulatory oversight and scrutiny given to intrastate oil pipeline rates, varies from state to state. We do not believe, however, that any regulatory changes will affect us in a way that materially differs from the way they will affect other crude oil and condensate producers with which we compete.

Further, interstate and intrastate common carrier oil pipelines must provide service on a non-discriminatory basis. Under this open access standard, common carriers must offer service to all shippers requesting service on the same terms and under the same rates. When oil pipelines operate at full capacity, access is governed by prorationing provisions set forth in the pipelines’ published tariffs. Accordingly, we believe that access to oil pipeline transportation services generally will be available to us to the same extent as to other crude oil and condensate producers with which we compete.

29

Our SP 49 Pipeline LLC system is subject to regulation by FERC under the ICA, the Energy Policy Act of 1992, and the rules and orders promulgated thereunder. The ICA requires that tariff rates for liquids pipelines, which include both crude oil pipelines and refined products pipelines, be just and reasonable and non-discriminatory. FERC-regulated liquids pipelines, including SP 49 Pipeline LLC, typically use the FERC indexing methodology to change its rates. FERC, however, retained cost-of-service ratemaking, market-based rates and settlement rates as alternatives to the indexing approach that may be used in certain specified circumstances. FERC reviews the index formula every five years. Effective July 1, 2016, the annual index adjustment for the five-year period ending June 30, 2021, will equal the producer price index for finished goods for the applicable year plus an adjustment factor of 1.23%. Pipelines may raise their rates to the rate ceiling level generated by application of the annual index adjustment factor each year; however, a shipper may challenge such increase if the increase in the pipeline’s rates was substantially in excess of the actual cost increases incurred by the pipeline during the relevant year. Because the indexing methodology for the next five-year period is tied to an inflation index and is not based on pipeline-specific costs, the indexing methodology could hamper our ability to recover cost increases.

On March 15, 2018, FERC issued a Revised Policy Statement on Treatment of Income Taxes (“Revised Policy Statement”) stating, among other things, that with respect to oil and refined products pipelines subject to FERC jurisdiction, the impacts of the Revised Policy Statement and Public Law No. 115-97 (“Tax Cuts and Jobs Act”) on the costs of FERC-regulated oil and NGL pipelines will be reflected in FERC’s next five-year review of the oil pipeline index, which will generate the index level to be effective July 1, 2021. FERC’s establishment of a just and reasonable rate, including the determination of the appropriate oil pipeline index, is based on many components, and tax-related changes will affect two such components, the allowance for income taxes and the amount for accumulated deferred income taxes, while other pipeline costs also will continue to affect FERC’s determination of the appropriate pipeline index. Accordingly, depending on FERC’s application of its indexing rate methodology for the next five-year term of index rates, the Revised Policy Statement and tax effects related to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act may impact our revenues associated with any transportation services we may provide pursuant to cost-of-service based rates in the future, including indexed rates.

FERC historically has not investigated rates of liquids pipelines on its own initiative when those rates have not been the subject of a protest or complaint by a shipper. FERC issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on October 20, 2016, that addressed issues related to FERC’s indexing methodology and liquids pipeline reporting practices. If implemented, the proposals in this rulemaking could affect the profitability of certain liquids pipelines.

We have an undivided interest in a pipeline owned by CKB Petroleum, Inc. that is subject to FERC jurisdiction under the ICA, but FERC has granted us a temporary waiver of the filing and reporting requirements. This pipeline is still subject to FERC’s jurisdiction under the ICA and is still subject to the other requirements of the ICA. If the facts upon which the waiver was granted change materially, we are required to inform FERC, which may result in revocation of the waiver. If conditions change such that the pipeline no longer qualifies for a waiver, we may be subject to regulation by FERC of the rates, terms, and conditions of service on the CKB Petroleum, Inc. pipeline, however these burdens generally would not affect us any differently or to any greater or lesser extent than they affect others in our industry with similar pipelines.

FERC also implements the OCSLA pertaining to transportation and pipeline issues, which requires that all pipelines operating on or across the OCS provide nondiscriminatory transportation service. We own and operate pipelines that are located in the OCS and are subject to the non-discrimination requirements in the OCSLA.

Employees

We had 440 employees as of March 4, 2020.

Available Information

We make our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, all amendments to those reports, and all other information filed with or furnished to the SEC available, free of charge, through our website, https://www.talosenergy.com, as soon as reasonably practicable after those reports and other information are electronically filed with or furnished to the SEC. The filings are also available by accessing the SEC’s website at https://www.sec.gov.

30

Item 1A. Risk Factors

Certain factors may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations. You should consider carefully the risks and uncertainties described below, in addition to other information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including our consolidated financial statements and related notes. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones we face. Additional risks and uncertainties that we are unaware of, or that we currently believe are not material, may also become important factors that adversely affect our business. If any of the following risks actually occur, our business, financial condition, results of operations and future prospects could be materially and adversely affected. In that event, the trading price of our common stock could decline, and you could lose part or all of your investment.

Oil and natural gas prices are volatile. Significant declines in commodity prices in the future may adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations, cash flows, access to the capital markets, and ability to grow.

Our revenues, cash flows, profitability and future rate of growth substantially depend upon the market prices of oil and natural gas. Prices affect our cash flows available for capital expenditures and our ability to access funds under our Bank Credit Facility and through the capital markets. The amount available for borrowing under our Bank Credit Facility is subject to a borrowing base, which is determined by the lenders taking into account our estimated proved reserves, and is subject to periodic redeterminations based on pricing models to be determined by the lenders at such time. Oil and natural gas prices significantly declined in the second half of 2014, with sustained lower prices continuing throughout 2015, 2016 and 2017. Despite a modest recovery from late 2017 to mid-2018, commodity prices could remain suppressed in 2020 or decline further in the future, which will likely have material adverse effects on our proved reserves and borrowing base. Further, because we use the full cost method of accounting for our oil and gas operations, we perform a ceiling test each quarter, which is impacted by declining prices. Significant price declines could cause us to take ceiling test write-downs, which would be reflected as non-cash charges against current earnings. See the Risk Factor entitled “Lower oil and natural gas prices and other factors in the future may result in ceiling test write-downs and other impairments of our asset carrying values” for further discussion.

In addition, significant or extended price declines may also adversely affect the amount of oil and natural gas that we can produce economically. A reduction in production could result in a shortfall in our expected cash flows and require us to reduce our capital spending or borrow funds to cover any such shortfall. Any of these factors could negatively impact our ability to replace our production and our future rate of growth.

The markets for oil and natural gas have been volatile historically and are likely to remain volatile in the future. For example, during the period January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019, the NYMEX WTI crude oil price per Bbl ranged from a low of $45.18 to a high of $70.98, and the NYMEX natural gas price per MMBtu ranged from a low of $2.22 to a high of $4.09. Commodity prices have experienced significant further declines during the first quarter of 2020, with prices for NYMEX WTI crude oil and NYMEX natural gas, respectively, reaching lows of $31.13 per Bbl and $1.68 during the period from January 1, 2020 through March 9, 2020. The high, low and average prices for NYMEX WTI and NYMEX Henry Hub are monthly contract prices. The prices we receive for our oil and natural gas depend upon many factors beyond our control, including, among others:

31

These factors make it very difficult to predict future commodity price movements with any certainty. Substantially all of our oil and natural gas sales are made in the spot market or pursuant to contracts based on spot market prices and are not long-term fixed price contracts. Further, oil prices and natural gas prices do not necessarily fluctuate in direct relation to each other. Because oil, natural gas and NGLs accounted for approximately 75%, 18%, and 7%, respectively, of our estimated proved reserves as of December 31, 2019, and approximately 73%, 21%, and 6%, respectively, of our 2019 production on an MBoe basis, our financial results are sensitive to movements in oil, natural gas and NGL prices.

Our debt level and the covenants in our current or future agreements governing our debt, including our Bank Credit Facility and the indenture for our 11.00% Second-Priority Senior Secured Notes, could negatively impact our financial condition, results of operations and business prospects. Our failure to comply with these covenants could result in the acceleration of our outstanding indebtedness.

The terms of the agreements governing our debt impose significant restrictions on our ability to take a number of actions that we may otherwise desire to take, including:

Our level of indebtedness, and the covenants contained in the agreements governing our debt, including the Bank Credit Facility and the indenture for our 11.00% Second-Priority Senior Secured Notes due 2022 (the “11.00% Notes”) of Talos Production Inc. and Talos Production Finance, Inc. (together, the “Talos Issuers”), have important consequences on our operations, including:

32

We may be required to repay all or a portion of our debt on an accelerated basis in certain circumstances. If we fail to comply with the covenants and other restrictions in the agreements governing our debt, it could lead to an event of default and the acceleration of repayment of outstanding debt. Our ability to comply with these covenants and other restrictions may be affected by events beyond our control, including prevailing economic and financial conditions. Sustained low oil and natural gas prices have a material and adverse effect on our liquidity position. Our cash flow is highly dependent on the prices we receive for oil and natural gas, which have declined significantly as compared to mid-2014.

We depend on our Bank Credit Facility for a portion of our future capital needs. We are required to comply with certain debt covenants and certain financial ratios under the Bank Credit Facility. Our borrowing base under the Bank Credit Facility, which is redetermined semi-annually, is based on an amount established by the lenders after their evaluation of our proved oil and natural gas reserve values. If, due to a redetermination of our borrowing base, our outstanding borrowings plus outstanding letters of credit exceed our redetermined borrowing base (referred to as a borrowing base deficiency), we could be required to repay such borrowing base deficiency. Our Bank Credit Facility allows us to cure a borrowing base deficiency through any combination of the following actions: (i) repay amounts outstanding sufficient to cure the borrowing base deficiency within 30 days after the existence of such deficiency; (ii) add additional oil and gas properties acceptable to the banks to the borrowing base and take such actions necessary to grant the banks a mortgage in such oil and gas properties within 30 days after the existence of such deficiency; (iii) pay the deficiency in four equal monthly installments with the first installment due within 30 days after the existence of such deficiency; or (iv) any combination of the above. We are required to elect one of the foregoing options within 10 days after the existence of such deficiency.

We may not have sufficient funds to make such repayments. If we do not repay our debt out of cash on hand, we could attempt to restructure or refinance such debt, reduce or delay investments and capital expenditures, sell assets, or repay such debt with the proceeds from an equity offering. We cannot assure you that we will be able to generate sufficient cash flows from operating activities to pay the interest on our debt or that future borrowings, equity financings or proceeds from the sale of assets are available to pay or refinance such debt. Any refinancing of indebtedness could be at higher interest rates and may require us to comply with more onerous covenants, which could further restrict business operations. The terms of our debt, including our Bank Credit Facility and the indenture for our 11.00% Notes, may also prohibit us from taking such actions. Factors that affect our ability to raise cash through offerings of our capital stock, a refinancing of our debt or a sale of assets include financial market conditions and our market value and operating performance at the time of such offerings, refinancing or sale of assets. We cannot assure you that any such offerings, restructuring, refinancing or sale of assets would be successfully completed.

Changes in the method of determining the London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”), or the replacement of LIBOR with an alternative reference rate, may adversely affect interest rates.

On July 27, 2017, the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) in the United Kingdom announced that it would phase out LIBOR as a benchmark by the end of 2021. It is unclear whether new methods of calculating LIBOR will be established such that it continues to exist after 2021, or whether different benchmark rates used to price indebtedness will develop. In the future, we may need to renegotiate the Bank Credit Facility or incur other indebtedness, and the phase-out of LIBOR may negatively impact the terms of such indebtedness. In addition, the overall financial market may be disrupted as a result of the phase-out or replacement of LIBOR. Disruption in the financial market could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and liquidity.

33

Regulatory requirements and permitting procedures imposed by BOEM and BSEE could significantly delay our ability to obtain permits to drill new wells in offshore waters.

BSEE and BOEM have imposed new and more stringent permitting procedures and regulatory safety and performance requirements for new wells to be drilled in federal waters. Compliance with these added and more stringent regulatory requirements and with existing environmental and spill regulations, together with uncertainties or inconsistencies in decisions and rulings by governmental agencies and delays in the processing and approval of drilling permits and exploration, development, oil spill response and decommissioning plans and possible additional regulatory initiatives could result in difficult and more costly actions and adversely affect or delay new drilling and ongoing development efforts. Moreover, these governmental agencies are continuing to evaluate aspects of safety and operational performance in the United States Gulf of Mexico and, as a result, are continuing to develop and implement new, more restrictive requirements. For example, in 2016, BSEE under the Obama Administration published a final rule on well control that, among other things, imposes rigorous standards relating to the design, operation and maintenance of blow-out preventers, real-time monitoring of deepwater, high temperature, high pressure drilling activities and enhanced reporting requirements. However, pursuant to President Trump’s Executive Orders, BSEE initiated a review of the well control regulations to determine whether the rules are consistent with the stated policy of encouraging energy exploration and production, while ensuring that any such activity is safe and environmentally responsible. One consequence of this review is that on May 15, 2019, BSEE published final revisions to the existing 2016 rule on well control that became effective on July 15, 2019 and, among other things, eliminated the requirement for offshore operators to certify through an independent third party that their critical safety and pollution prevention equipment (e.g., subsea safety equipment, including blowout preventers) is operational and functioning as designed in the most extreme conditions. There exists the possibility that any mitigatory actions under the Trump Administration could be withdrawn or revised in the future as a result of litigation or by a different presidential administration to impose or re-implement more stringent standards.

Compliance with these regulatory actions, or any new laws, regulations or other legal initiatives, whether under the Trump Administration or another administration could result in significant costs, including increased capital expenditures and operating costs, and could adversely impact our business. Furthermore, among other adverse impacts, to the extent that BOEM and BSEE do not reduce the stringency of existing oil and gas safety and performance-related regulations and other regulatory initiatives, the regulatory requirements imposed by such existing or future, more stringent regulations or other regulatory initiatives could delay operations, disrupt our operations or increase the risk of leases expiring before exploration and development efforts have been completed due to the time required to develop new technology. Additionally, if left unchanged, the existing, or future, more stringent oil and gas safety and performance-related regulations and other regulatory initiatives imposed by BOEM and BSEE could result in incurrence of associated added costs, limit operational activities in certain areas or cause us to incur penalties or shut-in production at one or more of our facilities. Also, if material spill incidents were to occur in the future, the United States or other countries where such an event may occur could elect to issue directives to temporarily cease drilling activities and, in any event, may from time to time issue further safety and environmental laws and regulations regarding offshore oil and natural gas exploration and development, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business. We cannot predict with any certainty the full impact of any new laws or regulations on our drilling operations or on the cost or availability of insurance to cover some or all of the risks associated with such operations.

Finally, due primarily to the threat of climate change arising from GHG emissions, certain candidates seeking the office of President of the United States in 2020 have pledged to take actions to ban new mineral leases on federal properties, including offshore leases on the OCS.

34

Guidelines issued by BOEM related to financial assurance requirements to cover decommissioning obligations for operations on the OCS may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

BOEM requires that lessees demonstrate financial strength and reliability according to its regulations or provide acceptable financial assurances to assure satisfaction of lease obligations, including decommissioning activities on the OCS. In 2016, BOEM under the Obama Administration issued the 2016 NTL to clarify the procedures and guidelines that BOEM Regional Directors use to determine if and when additional financial assurances may be required for OCS leases, ROWs or RUEs. The 2016 NTL became effective in September 2016, but pursuant to President Trump’s Executive Orders, BOEM initiated a review of the 2016 NTL and extended implementation indefinitely beyond June 30, 2017, except in certain circumstances where there is a substantial risk of nonperformance of the interest holder’s decommissioning liabilities, so as to provide BOEM with time to review its complex financial assurance program.

Following the effectiveness of the 2016 NTL, we received the BOEM 2016 Orders in late 2016 directing us to provide additional financial assurance in material amounts relating to our OCS properties. We entered into discussions with BOEM regarding the requested additional financial security and submitted a proposed tailored plan for the posting of additional financial security to the agency for review. However, as noted, BOEM under the Trump Administration has indefinitely delayed beyond June 30, 2017 implementation of the 2016 NTL, has rescinded the BOEM 2016 Orders while BOEM reviews its financial assurance program and, to date, has taken no action with respect to our previously submitted proposed tailored plan.

As of the filing date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, we have no outstanding BOEM orders for financial assurance obligations. Until BOEM and BSEE’s completion and publication of its proposed joint rule regarding financial assurance, we cannot estimate what additional financial assurance may be required by us, and therefore, we cannot provide any assurance of the amount of any additional financial assurance, which may be material, that may be ordered by BOEM and required of us in the future, or that such additional financial assurance amounts can be obtained. Moreover, BOEM, whether under the Trump Administration or another administration, could in the future make new demands for additional financial assurances in material amounts relating to the decommissioning of our OCS properties. BOEM may reject our proposals to satisfy any such additional financial assurance coverage and make demands that exceed our capabilities.

If we fail to comply with the current or future orders of BOEM to provide additional surety bonds or other financial assurances, BOEM could commence enforcement proceedings or take other remedial action, including assessing civil penalties, suspending operations or production, or initiating procedures to cancel leases, which, if upheld, would have a material adverse effect on our business, properties, results of operations and financial condition.

In addition, if fully implemented, the 2016 NTL is likely to result in the loss of supplemental bonding waivers for a large number of operators on the OCS, which could in turn force these operators to seek additional surety bonds and could, consequently, challenge the surety bond market’s capacity for providing such additional financial assurance. Operators who have already leveraged their assets as a result of the declining oil market could face difficulty obtaining surety bonds because of concerns the surety companies may have about the priority of their lien on the operator’s collateral. Moreover, depressed oil prices could result in sureties seeking additional collateral to support existing bonds, such as cash or letters of credit, and we cannot provide assurance that we will be able to satisfy collateral demands for future bonds to comply with supplemental bonding requirements of BOEM. If we are required to provide collateral in the form of cash or letters of credit, our liquidity position could be negatively impacted and we may be required to seek alternative financing. To the extent we are unable to secure adequate financing, we may be forced to reduce our capital expenditures. All of these factors may make it more difficult for us to obtain the financial assurances required by BOEM to conduct operations on the OCS. These and other changes to BOEM bonding and financial assurance requirements could result in increased costs on our operations and consequently have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

35

Our operations may incur substantial liabilities to comply with environmental laws and regulations as well as legal requirements applicable to marine mammals and endangered and threatened species.

Our oil and natural gas operations are subject to stringent federal, state, local and foreign laws and regulations relating to the release or disposal of materials into the environment or otherwise relating to environmental protection. These laws and regulations:

Failure to comply with these laws and regulations may result in: