Third Quarter 2015 Swift Energy Company November 5, 2015

Third Quarter 2015 Swift Energy Company November 5, 2015

Forward Looking Statements The material included herein which is not historical fact constitutes forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. These opinions, forecasts, scenarios and projections relate to, among other things, estimates of future commodity prices, operating and capital costs, capital expenditures, levels and costs of drilling activity, estimated production rates or forecasts of growth thereof, single well economics or sensitivity analysis, targeted cost reductions, hydrocarbon reserve quantities and values, anticipated future covenant compliance, potential oil and gas reserves expressed as net resource potential, assumptions as to future hydrocarbon prices, liquidity, cash flows, operating results, availability of capital, internal rates of return, net asset values, drilling schedules and potential growth rates of reserves and production, all of which are forwardlooking statements. These forward-looking statements are generally accompanied by words such as estimated, projected, potential, anticipated, forecasted or other words that convey the uncertainty of future events or outcomes. Although the Company believes that such forward-looking statements are reasonable, the matters addressed reflect management s current plans and assumptions, are subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond the Company s control, and certain of which are set out in our most recent Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filed with the SEC. The Company can give no assurance that estimates and projections contained in such statements will prove to have been correct. For reconciliations of non-gaap financial measures included herein (such as adjusted net income or cash flow before working capital changes) see our Form 8-K filed with the SEC simultaneously herewith. Cautionary Note Regarding Potential Reserves Disclosures Current SEC rules regarding oil and gas reserve information allow oil and gas companies to disclose not only proved reserves, but also probable and possible reserves that meet the SEC s definitions of such terms. In this presentation, we refer to estimates of resource potential or EUR (estimated ultimate recovery quantities) or IP (initial production rates) other descriptions of volumes potentially recoverable, which in addition to reserves generally classifiable as probable and possible include estimates of reserves that do not rise to the standards for possible reserves, and which SEC guidelines strictly prohibit us from including in filings with the SEC. These estimates are by their nature more speculative than estimates of proved reserves and are subject to greater uncertainties, and accordingly the likelihood of recovering those reserves is subject to substantially greater risk. 2

Summary Third quarter production of 2.87 MMBoe above guided range of 2.77 2.82 MMBoe Revised FY2015 guidance to 11.6-11.7 MMBoe and maintained capital budget of $110-$120MM Completed first Upper Eagle Ford well test 32 stage frac and ~15MM lbs of proppant New completion design includes 40% more proppant Fasken 38H: 30.2 MMcf/d IP Borrowing base redetermination Borrowing base of $330 million Key covenant modifications designed to increase flexibility in current market environment 3

Third Quarter Earnings Highlights (In thousands except per share amounts) 3Q15 3Q14 Revenues: Oil & Gas Sales $60,024 $133,896 Other $92 $4,898 Total Revenue $60,116 $138,794 Adjusted Net Income ($33,066) (1) $2,474 Adjusted Basic EPS ($0.74) (1) $0.06 Adjusted Diluted EPS ($0.74) (1) $0.06 Net Cash Provided by Operating Activities ($1,029) $81,872 Cash Flow Before Working Capital Changes (2) $5,106 $75,495 EBITDA (2) $23,388 $90,448 (1) Excludes pre-tax non-cash oil and gas property ceiling test write-down of $321.5 million. Please see Form 8-K filed on November 5, 2015 for GAAP reconciliation. (2) A non-gaap number; please see Form 8-K filed on November 5, 2015 for GAAP reconciliation. 4

Third Quarter 2015 Pricing and Production Highlights 3Q15 3Q14 Natural Gas Production (Bcf) 11.64 9.85 Crude Oil Production (MMBbl).581.870 NGL Production (MMBbl).344.482 Total Production (MMBoe) 2.87 2.99 Total Average Daily Production (Boe/d) 31,146 32,542 Average Natural Gas Price ($/Mcf) $2.51 $3.55 Average Crude Oil Price ($/Bbl) $45.24 $96.12 Average NGL Price ($/Bbl) $12.94 $33.39 Total Average Price ($/Boe) $20.95 $44.98 5

Balance Sheet (1) (In thousands) 9/30/15 12/31/14 Current Assets $48,231 $64,669 Net PP&E 962,576 2,095,037 Other Assets 13,471 13,641 Total Assets $1,024,278 $2,173,347 Current Liabilities 94,997 148,919 Long Term Debt 1,179,132 1,074,534 Other Liabilities 74,959 155,516 Total Liabilities $1,349,088 $1,378,969 Total Stockholders Equity (324,810) 794,378 Liabilities & Stockholders Equity $1,024,278 $2,173,347 (1) Please see September 30, 2015 Form 10-Q for more information. 6

Debt Maturity Schedule $450 $400 $350 $300 $250 $200 $150 $100 $50 $0 Senior Notes Maturity Schedule $250 7.125% June 1 st $225 8.875% Jan 15 th $400 7.875% March 1 st 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 $330 Million Bank Borrowing Base Bank Credit Facility Financial Covenant Amendments (1) Interest coverage ratio of 1.15x through 2Q16 and higher thereafter Senior secured leverage ratio of 3.50x through 2Q16 and lower thereafter Other changes made in November 2, 2015 Bank Credit Facility amendment are described in full in the Third Quarter 2015 Form 10-Q to be filed November 5, 2015. (1) This summary does not purport to be complete and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the actual Credit Agreement and amendments thereto exhibited in our SEC filings. 7

APPENDIX

Key Investment Highlights Top-Tier Operator in the Gas and Gas Condensate Areas of the Eagle Ford Best-in-class well performance Superior D&C and operating performance as benchmarked to competitors State-of-the-art integrated geoscience technology and engineering approach focused on acquiring and developing exceptional acreage positions 1,342 square miles of 3-D seismic and advanced attribute analysis across the Eagle Ford gas trend Strategically Positioned Assets to Take Advantage of Increasing Gas Demand Eagle Ford natural gas has a material pricing and cost advantage over NE sources EIA and WoodMackenzie project gas demand to grow by ~18 bcf/d by 2019 WoodMackenzie projects gas demand to grow by ~35 bcf/d by 2023 with over 60% of the demand coming from Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas and Oklahoma Gulf Coast LNG exports and exports to Mexico projected to make up a significant portion of demand growth Commitment to Ensure Improving Credit Profile Drilling and completion costs continue to decline; ~25% reduction to 2014 costs Development drilling on the highest return assets during low commodity price environment Maximizing capital efficiency through enhanced drilling and completion techniques Exploring opportunistic divestment of non-core assets as commodity pricing improves Selectively joint venture with strategic partners to further enhance capital efficiency Track Record of Growing Reserves Reserve and production five-year CAGR of 30% in South Texas Fasken s per well EUR s increased 20% in 2014 Production profile tracking above type curve in Fasken, AWP Gas, and Condensate acreage Explore strategic opportunities in core areas of expertise and competitive advantage 138 MMBoe of proved reserves in Eagle Ford at 12/31/14 Source: EIA and WoodMackenzie. 9

South Texas Portfolio Swift has a superior Eagle Ford acreage position located in parts of the core gas window Area County Gross Acres Locations @9/30/15 % Gas Fasken Webb 8,302 Lower Eagle Ford 31 100% Upper Eagle Ford 59 100% Austin Chalk 60 100% Olmos 20 100% AWP Gas Acreage McMullen 11,579 Lower Eagle Ford 82 80% Condensate Acreage McMullen 1,720 Lower Eagle Ford 8 60% Olmos 15 57% Oil Acreage McMullen 14,749 Lower Eagle Ford 104 20% Artesia Lower EF Oil Acreage La Salle 4,177 33 40% Condensate Acreage La Salle 4,115 36 50% Oro Grange Gas Acreage La Salle 12,635 74 100% Gas Acreage Option McMullen 11,850 71 100% Uno Mas Gas Acreage Live Oak 3,600 24 100% Total 72,727 617 SFY Acreage 10

Demonstrated Eagle Ford Operational Excellence Proven track record of increasing Eagle Ford production while consistently lowering drilling & completion costs and improving well economics and safety metrics 30,000 AVERAGE NET PRODUCTION (BOE/D) 28,800 AVERAGE PER WELL DRILL & COMPLETE COST ($MM) $12.0 $10.6 $9.2 9.0 $8.2 $7.6 24,000 6.0 $6.0 $6.5 18,000 17,519 3.0 14,166 0.0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 12,000 Targeted Cost Concession CORPORATE TOTAL RECORDABLE INCIDENT RATE 6,000 7,444 2.0 1.5 1.6 1.8 0 1,324 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Exit Rate 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.4 Eagle Ford Cumulative Well Count 15 36 83 121 158 0.0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 YTD (1) Based on the 2015 midpoint of $6.25. 11

Operational Performance at Fasken AVERAGE DRILLING WELL COST ($MM) Fasken acreage position has the highest EUR gas wells in the Eagle Ford Recently set record lateral length of 7,828 feet at bestto-date drilling cost of $122 per foot 28 consecutive wells expected to beat EUR of 12 BCF Wells produce 3-3.5 BCF in first year Secured 190 Mmcfe/d take away capacity Executed successful Upper Eagle Ford test $5mm $4mm $3mm $2mm $1mm Average Drilling Well Days $4.6 $4.1 $4.0 $3.1 $2.2 2011 2012 2013 2014 3Q15 34 32 36 22 19 COMPLETION COSTS PER 1,000 LATERAL ($000) AVERAGE COMPLETION COSTS ($MM) $1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $1,025 $745 $692 $642 $474 $5mm $4mm $3mm $2mm $5.2 $4.3 $4.3 $4.6 $3.4 $200 $1mm 2011 2012 2013 2014 3Q15 2011 2012 2013 2014 3Q15 Average Number of Stages 14 17 18 22 27 Average Lateral (Feet) 4,950 5,718 6,167 7,112 7,828 (1) (1) Represents the longest lateral to date drilled in Fasken in 2015. 12

Top 50 EF Wells by Six Month Gas Production Swift has the top 12 Eagle Ford Gas wells and many of its wells far exceed the top 10% performance benchmark First Six-Months Cumulative Gas Production (MCF) 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 Performance Benchmarks (1) Swift Company A Company B Company C Company D Company E Benchmarks 0 FASKEN A EF A3 FASKEN A EF H FASKEN AB FASKEN AB FASKEN BD FASKEN AB FASKEN C FASKEN BD FASKEN BD FASKEN A EF A3 FASKEN C FASKEN C A-1 FASKEN A5 B-1 FASKEN AB FASKEN C BRACKEN-JV FASKEN BCD FASKEN D C-1 A-2 A-3 B-2 B-3 BRACKEN-JV FASKEN A B-4 A-4 FASKEN B A-5 C-2 B-5 FASKEN "A" EF A-6 D-1 A-7 A-8 E-1 A-9 FASKEN H A-10 A-11 A-12 FASKEN A3 C-3 B-6 D-2 A-13 A-14 Average Top 50 Wells Top 10% First Quartile Second Quartile Third Quartile Source: Drilling Info first 6 month cumulative gas production for Eagle Ford gas wells. (1) Performance benchmarks exclude Swift wells. 13

Becoming a Top Natural Gas Producer in Texas (1) Swift Energy was a top 25 natural gas producer in Texas in 2014 (2) Swift Energy had the second highest growth rate in natural gas production for 2014 Swift was number one in terms of improvement in the Texas Top 25 Gas Producers Ranking 800,000,000 700,000,000 600,000,000 500,000,000 400,000,000 300,000,000 Swift moved up ten spots to #21 from #31 in 2013 Our goal is to be a top ten natural gas producer in the next two to three years MCF Texas Top 25 Gas Producers (2014 Rankings) (2) Top 10 Gas Producers by Growth YoY (4) 1. Hilcorp Energy 72.7% 2. Swift Energy 66.6% 3. SM Energy 61.5% 4. Enervest 61.5% 5. Lewis Petroleum 59.4% 6. Rosetta 38.1% 7. Sabine 35.2% 8. Anadarko 22.8% 9. Burlington 12.5% 10. BHP Billiton 10.4% 200,000,000 2015 2014 100,000,000 0 (1) Based on operated natural gas production. (2) Source: http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/oil-gas/research-and-statistics/operator-information/top-32-texas-oil-gas-producers/ (3) Based on 2015 estimated natural gas production per 5/7/15guidance. (4) Using the 2014 Texas Top 25 Gas Producers Ranking as the basis. 14