NYSE American: GDP

DUG Haynesville Presentation

October, 2020  This presentation has been prepared by Goodrich Petroleum Corporation (the “Company”) solely for information purposes and may include "forward- looking statements" within the meaning of the U.S. Private Litigation Securities Reform Act of 1995. The Company, its respective employees, directors, officers or advisors, does not make any representation or warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in the presentation materials. The Company shall have no liability for this presentation, information contained herein, or any representations (expressed or implied), whether the communications were oral or written. The statements, other than statements of historical facts, included in this presentation that address activities, events or developments that the Company expects, believes or anticipates will or may occur in the future are forward-looking statements. These statements include, but are not limited to forward-looking statements about acquisitions, divestitures, trades, potential strategic alliances, the availability of capital, the expectations of plans, strategies, objectives and anticipated financial and operating results of the Company, including the Company's drilling program, production, hedging activities, capital expenditure levels and other guidance that may be included in this presentation. These statements are based on certain assumptions made by the Company based on management's experience and perception of historical trends, current conditions, anticipated future developments and other factors believed to be appropriate. Such statements are subject to a number of assumptions, risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond the control of the Company, which may cause actual results to differ materially from those implied or expressed by the forward-looking statements. These include risks relating to the Company's financial performance and results, availability of sufficient cash flow to execute its business plan, prices and demand for oil, natural gas and natural gas liquids, the ability to replace reserves and efficiently develop current reserves, the ability to access the capital markets and finance operations, including capital expenditures, and other important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected as described in this presentation and the Company's reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. See "Risk Factors" in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and other public filings and press releases.

 Any forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date on which such statement is made and the Company undertakes no obligation to correct or update any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

2 Pay Zones

GDP 24,000 Net Acres

} 100 – 300 feet

3 4 . The Haynesville Shale is one of the largest and most prolific natural gas plays in the United  Key Points States, strategically located near petrochemical complexes and LNG export facilities on the Gulf Coast

• Record Cash Margin on High . The Play is experiencing a renaissance due to new well design (longer laterals), tighter frac Volume, Low Lifting Cost Wells intervals and increased proppant concentrations With Low Finding and Development Cost . Basin benefits from a very favorable oil and gas regulatory environment, including a severance tax abatement for the earlier of two years or payout • Repeatability of Results When Drilling and Completing the . States of Texas and Louisiana have very supportive mineral owners eager for development Wells the Same Way activity • 2.5 Bcf per 1,000’ of lateral in the Core on 880’ Spacing . Over-pressured reservoir leads to very high initial production rates and eliminates the need for gas compression in early years

. Dry gas production eliminates the need for processing and high production rates provide for low per unit operating expenses

. Existing facilities and midstream infrastructure provides for rapid “spud-to-sales” cycle times

. Huge development inventory exists from existing locations and pad drilling

5 Type Log Goodrich Petroleum, James Cook #1 Caddo Parish, Louisiana

Key Points . The Upper Jurassic aged Haynesville Shale lies between the Bossier and Cotton Valley Lime intervals

. Dark organic rich, brittle mudstone-shale

. The Haynesville Shale is deposited in deep-basin setting with generally south, basin-ward dip at depths ranging from 10,500’ - 15,000’

Top HS Porosity . Initial horizontal target approximately 100’ below top porosity is positioned between two limestone stringers (Rabbit Ears) improving correlation and geo-steering.

. Thick pay interval ranging from 150’ - 400’ with an average 250’ (gross). Wine racking possible due to thickness

. Consistent log characteristics throughout the play Initial Target . Seismic over key area shows calm depositional environment with no faulting Window

. Through Core Lab consortium 65 key wells with whole cores taken through both Haynesville and Bossier intervals. TOC range (Core) 1.08 - 3.96%, Average TOC 2.6%. Total Porosity (Log 8 - 12%, Core 4 - 12%)

. Over-pressured shale > 0.9 psi/ft. Reservoir pore pressures ranging from Base of HS 9,500 - 12,600 psi Porosity

6 Haynesville - Core . Total Gross/Net Acres: ~36,000/21,000 . Average WI/NRI: ~59%/43% . Acreage HBP: 100% . 120+ total producing wells (`40 Operated) . 1/1/20 – Inventory of 216 gross (96 NORTH net) potential locations on 880’ LOUISIANA CORE spacing providing 19+ year inventory AREA . Operator for Approximately 75% of the NLA core position, 70% 21,000 Net Ac Undeveloped . CHK Joint Venture on most of the remaining 25% of NLA Core Acreage . Recent Acquisitions Adding to Inventory with No Upfront Capital . Continuing to Look For Bolt-On Opportunities

Shelby Trough/Angelina River Trend TOTAL HAYNESVILLE (ART) SHALE Haynesville and Bossier Shales: ~24,000 net Ac . Total Gross/Net Acres: ~6,000/ 3,000 . Average WI/NRI: ~40% / 30% ART 3,000 Net Ac

Rig Source: Ulterra Bits

7 8 9 10 Haynesville – Recent Industry Activity

(1) CRK (23) CRK (2) CRK 3. CRK 4. CRK Nissen 28-21HC #1 Gates 26-35 #1 & #2 Nissen 28-21HC #2 FLORSHEIM 9-16 HC 5. CHK (22) CHK HUNTER 28-21HC 1&2 10,000’ Lateral 10,000’ Laterals 10,000’ Lateral #1&2 10,000’ Laterals GEPH Unit Black 1H IP: 27,000 Mcf/d each IP: 27,000 Mcf/d IP: 24,600 Mcf/d IP: 25,000 Mcf/d IP: 26,500 Mcf/d IP: 47,988 Mcf/d IP: 44,000 Mcf/d 9,200’ Laterals 3,796#/ft IP: 23,700 Mcf/d 3,801#/ft IP: 27,600 Mcf/d 15,000’ Lateral 10,000’ Lateral 23 (6) CRK Cook 21-28 HC #1 3 (21) Vine 10,000’ Lateral HA RA SU74;L L IP: 25,600 Mcf/d 4 Golson 3 - 003-ALT 3,803#/ft 1 IP: 18,800 Mcf/d 2 4,661’ Lateral

(7) CRK (20) GDP Cook 21-28 HC #2 Cason-Dickson 23&24 10,000’ Lateral #3&4 IP: 26,800 Mcf/d 6 5 IP: 62,000 Mcf/d 3,798#/ft 7 9,300’ Laterals

(8) CHK (19) GDP ROTC 1 & 2 22 Cason-Dickson #1&2 10,000’ Laterals IP: 31 MMcf/d, IP: 72,000 Mcf/d IP: 23 MMcf/d 19 Bcf in 19 months 8,000 & 3,000’ Laterals 8

21 (22) GDP (18) GDP Melody Jones 20H-1 Harris 14&23 #1 4,600’ Lateral 22 10-16 IP: 27,500 Mcf/d IP: 22,000 Mcf/d 6,100’ Lateral 18-20 9 17 (9) GDP (17) Covey Park MSR - Hunt 5H-1 Tucker 31-6C H1 4,600’ Lateral IP 18,045 Mcf/d IP: 17,000 Mcf/d 7,466’ Lateral

(11) GDP-Wurtsbaugh (14) GDP (10) GDP (12) GDP (13) GDP (15) GDP (16) GDP 25-24 #2&3 Loftus 27&22 #1 & 2 Wurtsbaugh 26 Wurtsbaugh 25-24 #1 Franks 25&24 #1 Demmon 34H #1 Wurtsbaugh 35H #1 7,500’ Laterals 26,000 Mcfe/d 4,600’ Lateral 8,800’ Lateral IP: 30,000 Mcf/d 22,500 Mcf/d IP: 22,500 Mcf/d IP: 25,000 Mcf/d 25,000 Mcfe/d IP: 22,000 Mcf/d IP: 31,000 Mcf/d 9,600’ Lateral 4,600’ Lateral 4,600’ Lateral IP: 29,000 Mcf/d 7,500’ Laterals 11 Designing completions to maximize near-wellbore stimulation

Original Design Recent Design Testing (2008 - 2014) (2015 - Current) (Currently)

• 4,600‘ Laterals • 4,600 – 10,000’ Laterals • 10,000’ Laterals • 1,000 lbs/ft Proppant • 3,000 lbs/ft Proppant • 5,000+ lbs/ft Proppant • Hybrid Fluid • Slick Water Fluid • Slick Water Fluid • 300-450’ Frac Intervals • 150-250’ Frac Intervals • 75-150’ Frac Intervals • Cluster Spacing 50-70’ • Cluster Spacing 30-50’ • Cluster Spacing 10-20’

12 SEC Proved Reserves (Bcfe) YE19 Proved Reserves by Commodity Natural ETX TMS NLA - Haynesville Total Gas – 511 600 (99%)

517 480 500

428 Oil - 6 (1%) 400 YE19 Proved Reserves by Area (Bcfe, %)

303 HS – 511 300 (99%)

200

TMS-6 100 (1%) 55 YE19 Proved Reserves by Category (Bcfe, %)

0 2015 2016 2017 2018* 2019 PUD-372 (72%) SEC PV10 of $297 Million PDP- 145 (28%) 13 Core Haynesville Inventory

GROSS NET PROVED YE19 SEC POTENTIAL TOTAL 3P PARISH/ GROSS NET REMAINING REMAINING RESERVES PV10 NET RESERVES NET RESOURCE COUNTY AREA ACRES ACRES LOCATIONS LOCATIONS (BCFE) * (MM) (BCFE) ** POTENTIAL

Caddo/DeSoto/ Bethany- Panola Longstreet 30,300 16,000 137 63 411 $224 740 1,151

Greenwood- Caddo Waskom 4,100 3,600 54 31 40 2 445 485

Swan Lake/Thorn Bienville Lake 1,600 1,400 25 2 59 55 35 94

Angelina Other River, Other 6,000 3,000 1 1 0 1

Total Haynesville 42,000 24,000 216 96 511 282 1,220 1,731

TMS LA, MS 47,800 33,200 6 15 6

Totals 89,800 57,200 216 96 517 $297 1,220 1,737

* YE19 Proved Reserves - Netherland Sewell & Ryder Scott ** 2.5 Bcfe/1k ft of Lateral Applied to Potential Reserves. Angelina River Potential Not Quantified

14 Recent Haynesville 4,600' Wells 100,000 10,000

GDP, 8 Well Average (Avg 4,352' LL; 3,972 #/ft Frac)

Industry Average Well Performance 298 Wells (2,578 #/ft Frac)

Company Type Curve: 10,000 EUR: 11.5 Bcf (2.5 Bcf/1,000 ft) 1,000

298298295297297297298298298298297296292287 279273270 Well Count 256252243 228213 199198191 190178 Gas Production, Mcfpd 163 Company Type Curve: 154149 139138 1,000 129 EUR: 9.2 Bcf (2.0 Bcf/1,000 ft) 122114 100 103 92 88 80 77 71 62 60 56 43 42 40 36

Industry Average Industry Average Industry Average 2,786 #/ft 2,657 #/ft 2,177 #/ft 100 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Months

15 Recent Haynesville 7,500' Wells 100,000 10,000

GDP, 10 Well Average (Avg 7,689' LL, 3,731 #/ft Frac)

Industry Average Well Performance 207 Wells (2,497 #/ft Frac)

Company Type Curve: EUR: 18.75 Bcf (2.5 Bcf/1,000 ft) 10,000 1,000

Company Type Curve EUR: 15.0 Bcf (2.0 Bcf/1,000 ft) Well Count

207205207207206207206206206 206 203 203203200198191 186180177176

Gas Production, Mcfpd 173 162157156 141138132 1,000 123123 100 110103 91 82 72 67 63 56 49 43 39 38 34 33 30 31 28 28 23 Industry Average Industry Average Industry Average 2,714 #/ft 2,682 #/ft 1,997 #/ft 100 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Months 16 Recent Haynesville 10,000' Wells 100,000 10,000 GDP, 9 Well Average (Avg 9,602' LL; 3,495 #/ft)

Industry Average Well Performance 187 Wells (2,889 #/ft Frac) Company Type Curve: 10,000 EUR: 25 Bcf (2.5 Bcf/1,000 ft) 1,000

Company Type Curve EUR: 20 Bcf (2.0 Bcf/1,000 ft) Well Count

187186180186185185187186187186186185185183 Gas Production, Mcfpd 170 160154 142138 1,000 127122 100 117112 99 91 82 74 64 60 52 52 49 41 27 25 Industry Average 23 Industry Average 3,155 #/ft 32 2,275 #/ft

19 18 15 100 12 12 10 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 4210 48 Months

17 Assumptions Louisiana 4,600' Lateral Type Curve 100,000 EUR 12.6 Bcf (2.7 Bcf/1,000’)

10,000 Sales Gas BTU Price 1.020 Adjustment

Pricing 1,000 Average - NYMEX less $0.15 / MMBtu Differentials/ Transportation: $0.30 / Mcf Transportation Avg Daily Production (Mcfpd) 100 Fixed Opex Fixed Opex: $3,290 / month 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Months

Variable Opex $0.07 / Mcf

4,600' Lateral Payout or 24 month tax holiday; IRR Sensitivity Analysis Estimates (IRR Sensitivity to EURs and Capex) Severance Tax thereafter $0.12 / Mcf IRRs Incoporate Early Time Outperformance EUR Capex Ad Val Tax $0.03 / Mcf (Mmcfe) ($M) 90% 100% 110% 90% 100% 110% Royalty Burden 27.0% 2.00 25.0% 37.8% 52.6% 2.00 53.0% 37.8% 27.0% 2.25 43.3% 61.3% 81.9% 2.25 82.8% 61.3% 45.9% D&C Capex $7.0 MM 2.50 65.0% 89.2% 117.1% 2.50 118.5% 89.2% 68.3%

Facilities/Tubing Gas Price 2.75 90.5% 122.1% 158.9% Gas Price 2.75 161.0% 122.1% 94.6% Capex $0.381 MM, included in D&C Capex 3.00 120.0% 160.6% 208.4% 3.00 211.4% 160.6% 125.1%

Ownership: WI 100% - NRI 73% Spud to 1st Sale 60 Days Pricing: Flat Pricing AFE: Two well pad. PV10 (M$) $7,047 (Post Capex) ($2.75/Mcf Pricing)

Economic EUR’s vary depending on gas price assumptions.

18 Assumptions Louisiana 7,500' Lateral Type Curve 100,000 EUR 21 Bcf (2.8 Bcf/1,000’)

10,000 Sales Gas BTU Price 1.020 Adjustment 1,000 Pricing Average - NYMEX less $0.15 / MMBtu Differentials/ Transportation - $0.30 / Mcf Transportation Avg Daily Production (Mcfpd) 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Fixed Opex Fixed Opex: $3,290 / month Months

Variable Opex $0.07 / Mcf 7,500' Lateral IRR Sensitivity Analysis Estimates (IRR Sensitivity to EURs and Capex) Payout or 24 month tax holiday; Severance Tax IRRs Incoporate Early Time Outperformance thereafter $0.12 / Mcf EUR Capex (Mmcfe) ($M) Ad Val Tax $0.03 / Mcf 90% 100% 110% 90% 100% 110% 2.00 47.8% 65.5% 85.7% 2.00 86.8% 65.5% 49.6% Royalty Burden 27.0% 2.25 72.8% 97.5% 125.9% 2.25 127.7% 97.5% 75.0% 2.50 102.6% 135.9% 174.8% 2.50 177.5% 135.9% 105.4% D&C Capex $8.9 MM

Gas Price 2.75 137.8% 181.9% 233.9% Gas Price 2.75 237.7% 181.9% 141.3% Facilities/Tubing 3.00 179.0% 236.3% 304.9% 3.00 310.1% 236.3% 183.3% Capex $0.408 MM, included in D&C Capex Ownership: WI 100% - NRI 73% Spud to 1st Sale 60 Days Pricing: Flat Pricing AFE: Two well pad. PV10 (M$) $13,453 (Post Capex) ($2.75/Mcf Pricing)

Economic EUR’s vary depending on gas price assumptions.

19 Assumptions Louisiana 10,000' Lateral Type Curve 100,000

EUR 25 Bcf (2.5 Bcf/1,000’)

10,000

Sales Gas BTU 1.020 Price Adjustment 1,000

Pricing Differentials/ Average - NYMEX less $0.15 / MMBtu Transportation Transportation: $0.30 / Mcf Avg Daily Production (Mcfpd) 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Fixed Opex Fixed Opex: $3,290 / month Months

Variable Opex $0.07 / Mcf

10,000' Lateral Payout or 24 month tax holiday; Severance Tax thereafter $0.12 / Mcf IRR Sensitivity Analysis (IRR Sensitivity to EURs and Capex) IRRs Incoporate Early Time Outperformance EUR Capex Ad Val Tax $0.03 / Mcf (Mmcfe) ($M) 90% 100% 110% 90% 100% 110% Royalty Burden 27.0% 2.00 27.7% 39.9% 53.9% 2.00 54.5% 39.9% 29.4% D&C Capex $10.7 MM 2.25 47.8% 65.7% 86.1% 2.25 87.3% 65.7% 50.1% 2.50 72.3% 97.1% 125.6% 2.50 127.4% 97.1% 75.4% Facilities/Tubing $0.485 MM, included in D&C Capex Gas Price 2.75 101.6% 134.7% 173.2% Gas Price 2.75 175.8% 134.7% 105.5% Capex 3.00 135.8% 179.2% 179.2% 3.00 233.5% 179.2% 140.9% Spud to 1st Sale 60 Days Ownership: WI 100% - NRI 73% PV10 (M$) $15,226 (Post Capex) Pricing: Flat Pricing ($2.75/Mcf Pricing) AFE: Two well pad. Economic EUR’s vary depending on gas price assumptions

20 $3.00

$2.50 $2.74 $2.00 $2.30

$1.50 $1.79 $1.59 $1.69 $1.00 $1.34 $1.09 $0.50 $0.94 $1.05

$0.00 GDP

Per Unit Cash Costs Cash Interest Expense Peers include: AR,COG,CRK,EQT,GDP, GPOR,MR,RRC,SWN

21 Cash Margin 60%

40% 3 51% 47% 38% 20% 33% 21% 2% 11% 6% 0% 2% -27% -20% GDP

Peer Companies Include: -40% AR,COG,CRK,EQT,GDP,GP OR,MR,RRC,SWN

22  Cash Flow Generation With Strong Balance Sheet and Low Trading Multiple Creates an Attractive Entry Point for the Stock

 20 Year Inventory on Core Haynesville Position Provides ~1.7 Tcf of Resource Potential on Acreage Predominately Held By Production

 A Continued Reduction in Per Unit Cash Costs Driven By High Volume, Low Lifting Cost Wells

 Improving Natural Gas Price Environment Setting Company Up for Top Tier Growth and Free Cash Flow Potential for 2021

23  Environmental: ◦ Total Gas Flared: (% of Production) ~0 ◦ Total GHG Emissions: (2019) (000 Mt) (EPA,LDEQ,MDEQ,TECQ Compliant) 27 ◦ Total Water Use (2019 - MMBls): 5.1 ◦ OSHA Compliant  Social: ◦ Number of Employees: 48 ◦ Percentage of Employees Unionized: 0% ◦ Percentage of Women in the Workforce: 51% ◦ Percentage of Minorities in the Workforce: 20%  Governance: ◦ Size of Board: 8 ◦ Independent Directors: 6 ◦ Percentage of Independent Directors: 75% ◦ Board Duration: 1 Year ◦ Number of Board Meetings: 10 ◦ Board Meeting Attendance: 100%

24 1. Climate is Changing? Yes, it always does. Planet has warmed by ~1.5 degrees F over the last 160 years

1800 – 1940 – Global Warming Concerns 1940 - 1970s – Global Cooling Concerns. “Global Ice Age is Upon Us”. Associated Press 1980s – Up to 1 billion climate deaths by 2000s. Climate death rates have actually decreased by 98% 1999 – 2010 – No Global Warming, Yet Alarmist Abound. “Eight Years to Save the Planet”

2. GHG Emissions are Rising?

True, although US emissions have fallen recently primarily driven by natural gas capturing market share from coal. Worldwide CO2 is rising because undeveloped countries are improving the lives of their citizens with cheap coal and other fossil fuel energy sources. Replacing wood and dung with cheap, reliable coal and fossil fuels to heat their homes and cleanse their water

3. Electric Vehicles Versus Combustible Engine Vehicles? A seat at the table and part of the solution, but:

Electric vehicle enthusiasts readily grasp that an EV does not burn gasoline. It is scarcely noticed, however, that the EV itself is made of hydrocarbons: thermoplastics throughout the body, polyurethane in the seats, wire casings in the electronics, acrylic coatings on the windows and screens, synthetic adhesives throughout the interior, manufactured rubber in the tires. Without hydrocarbons, the EV instantly blinks into nonexistence in a poof of irony. Colin Fenton, TPH

Raw materials for EV batteries – lithium (Chile and Argentina), graphite (2/3rds of world supply – China) and cobalt (Democratic Republic of Congo). Battery disposal, another environmental catastrophe in the making and larger footprint. Majority of Tesla batteries made in China and 60% of the energy in China comes from coal. The manufacturing of Tesla cars is dirtier than combustible engine due to use of coal

4. Renewables the Answer? Not currently, renewables regressive to the poor through higher costs

All visions of future sustainability rely on countless goods made from hydrocarbons: medical equipment, medicines, wind turbine blades, fertilizers, fiber-optic cables, computers, smartphones, roofing materials, consumer products, clothing, etc. No segment of the global modern economy avoids use of hydrocarbons. Germany’s electricity prices are 3X of U.S. due to focus on renewables.

25  The environment does not start out healthy and then we make it dirty, it is the opposite. Alex Epstein, “A Moral Case for Fossil Fuels”

 We Should Do Our Best as an Industry to Minimize our Environmental Footprint and Provide a Better Standard of Living for all. Fossil fuels have reduced global extreme poverty from 90% to 10% due to abundant, low cost energy and improved energy security

 Green New Deal – Are humans willing to pay more for energy, travel less due to restrictions, eliminate flying, incur the deficits necessary to convert buildings to less reliable sources. All sources of energy should compete to produce the most reliable, low cost energy for the benefit of people – our primary objective

 One billion people without access to electricity; Two to three billion still cook with wood and dung and three million killed by indoor air pollution yearly. We should continue to provide cheap electricity and clean cooking as we focus on the benefits of climate change and solve for the side effects. To oppose fossil fuel usage is to oppose undeveloped countries and the impoverished because energy drives life expectancy and quality of life. Will China and India quit using the lowest cost energy when so many of their population are deficient and living in poverty? Answer - They are currently building hundreds of coal plants

 Thorough analysis of processes that convert resources into energy that benefits the most humans on the planet with the least negative affects. Elimination of fossil fuels will not prevent a crisis, it will create one, by dramatically increasing cost of unreliable energy (i.e. blackouts) and reverting to third world status with higher mortality rates

26