Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED March 31, 2012

OR

Commission File Number 000-19514

Gulfport Energy Corporation

(Exact Name of Registrant As Specified in Its Charter)

(405) 848-8807

(Registrant Telephone Number, Including Area Code)

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 past 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  x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).    Yes  x    No  ¨

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).    Yes  ¨    No  x

As of May 2, 2012, 55,649,717 shares of common stock were outstanding.

Table of Contents

GULFPORT ENERGY CORPORATION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

Table of Contents

GULFPORT ENERGY CORPORATION

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(Unaudited)

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

3

Table of Contents

GULFPORT ENERGY CORPORATION

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

(Unaudited)

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

4

Table of Contents

GULFPORT ENERGY CORPORATION

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS)

(Unaudited)

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

5

Table of Contents

GULFPORT ENERGY CORPORATION

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY

(Unaudited)

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

6

Table of Contents

GULFPORT ENERGY CORPORATION

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

(Unaudited)

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

7

Table of Contents

GULFPORT ENERGY CORPORATION

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Unaudited)

These consolidated financial statements have been prepared by Gulfport Energy Corporation (the “Company” or “Gulfport”) without audit, pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and reflect all adjustments which, in the opinion of management, are necessary for a fair presentation of the results for the interim periods, on a basis consistent with the annual audited consolidated financial statements. All such adjustments are of a normal recurring nature. Certain information, accounting policies, and footnote disclosures normally included in financial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles have been omitted pursuant to such rules and regulations, although the Company believes that the disclosures are adequate to make the information presented not misleading. These consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and the summary of significant accounting policies and notes thereto included in the Company’s most recent annual report on Form 10-K. Results for the three month period ended March 31, 2012 are not necessarily indicative of the results expected for the full year.

Beginning in February 2011, the Company entered into agreements to acquire certain leasehold interests located in the Utica Shale in Ohio. Certain of the agreements also granted the Company an exclusive right of first refusal for a period of six months on certain additional tracts leased by the seller. Gulfport is the operator on this acreage in the Utica Shale. As of March 31, 2012, the Company had acquired leasehold interests in approximately 107,000 gross (53,500 net) acres in the Utica Shale for approximately $150.7 million. Gulfport funded these transactions with a portion of the proceeds from public offerings of an aggregate of 6.2 million shares of the Company’s common stock completed in March and July of 2011. The Company also has commitments with various future closing dates that could increase its acreage position in the Utica Shale to an aggregate of approximately 125,000 gross (62,500 net) leasehold acres. Entities controlled by Wexford Capital LP (“Wexford”) have participated with the Company on a 50/50 basis in the acquisition of all leases described above.

Included in the accompanying March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011 consolidated balance sheets are amounts receivable from related parties of the Company. These receivables consist primarily of amounts billed by the Company to related parties as operator of the Company’s Colorado and Ohio oil and gas properties. At March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, these receivables totaled $5,194,000 and $4,731,000, respectively.

The Company is a party to administrative service agreements with Stampede Farms LLC (“Stampede”), Everest Operations Management LLC (“Everest”) and Tatex Thailand III, LLC (“Tatex III”), which agreements were each entered into effective March 1, 2008. Under these agreements, the Company’s services include professional and technical support and the fees for such services can be amended by mutual agreement of the parties. Each of these administrative service agreements may be cancelled (1) by the Company with at least 60 days prior written notice, (2) by the counterparty at any time with at least 30 days prior written notice to the Company and (3) by either party if the other party is in material breach and such breach has not been cured within 30 days of receipt of written notice of such breach. The Company did not provide services under any of these agreements in 2011 and received no reimbursements thereunder. Each of Stampede, Everest and Tatex III is controlled by Wexford. Charles E. Davidson is the Chairman and Chief Investment Officer of Wexford and he beneficially owned approximately 13.3% and 9.5% of the Company’s outstanding common stock as of December 31, 2011 and March 13, 2012, respectively.

Effective July 1, 2008, the Company entered into an acquisition team agreement with Everest to identify and evaluate potential oil and gas properties in which the Company and Everest or its affiliates may wish to invest. Upon a successful closing of an acquisition or divestiture, the party identifying the acquisition or divestiture is entitled to receive a fee from the other party and its affiliates, if applicable, participating in such closing. The fee is equal to 1% of the party’s proportionate share of the acquisition or divestiture consideration. The agreement may be terminated by either party

8

Table of Contents

upon 30 days notice. Affiliates of Everest were billed approximately $325,000 under this acquisition team agreement during the three months ended March 31, 2012, which is reflected as a reduction of general and administrative expenses in the consolidated statements of operations. No amounts were billed under the acquisition team agreement during the three months ended March 31, 2011.

Effective April 1, 2010, the Company entered into an area of mutual interest agreement with Windsor Niobrara LLC (“Windsor Niobrara”), an entity controlled by Wexford, to jointly acquire oil and gas leases on certain lands located in Northwest Colorado for the purpose of exploring, exploiting and producing oil and gas from the Niobrara Formation. The agreement provides that each party must offer the other party the right to participate in such acquisitions on a 50%/50% basis. The parties also agreed, subject to certain exceptions, to share third-party costs and expenses in proportion to their respective participating interests and pay certain other fees as provided in the agreement. In connection with this agreement, Gulfport and Windsor Niobrara also entered into a development agreement, effective as of April 1, 2010, pursuant to which the Company and Windsor Niobrara agreed to jointly develop the contract area, and Gulfport agreed to act as the operator under the terms of a joint operating agreement.

The major categories of property and equipment and related accumulated depletion, depreciation, amortization and impairment as of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011 are as follows:

Included in oil and gas properties at March 31, 2012 is the cumulative capitalization of $25,470,000 in general and administrative costs incurred and capitalized to the full cost pool. General and administrative costs capitalized to the full cost pool represent management’s estimate of costs incurred directly related to exploration and development activities such as geological and other administrative costs associated with overseeing the exploration and development activities. All general and administrative costs not directly associated with exploration and development activities were charged to expense as they were incurred. Capitalized general and administrative costs were approximately $1,976,000 and $1,377,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

The following table summarizes the Company’s non-producing properties excluded from amortization by area at March 31, 2012:

9

Table of Contents

The Company evaluates the costs excluded from its amortization calculation at least annually. Subject to industry conditions and the level of the Company’s activities, the inclusion of most of the above referenced costs into the Company’s amortization calculation is expected to occur within three to five years.

A reconciliation of the asset retirement obligation for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011 is as follows:

Investments accounted for by the equity method consist of the following as of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011:

Tatex Thailand II, LLC

The Company has a 23.5% ownership interest in Tatex Thailand II, LLC (“Tatex”). The remaining interests in Tatex are owned by entities controlled by Wexford. Tatex holds 85,122 of the 1,000,000 outstanding shares of APICO, LLC (“APICO”), an international oil and gas exploration company. APICO has a reserve base located in Southeast Asia through its ownership of concessions covering two million acres which includes the Phu Horm Field. During the three months ended March 31, 2012, Gulfport received $200,000 in distributions, reducing its total net investment in Tatex to $829,000. The loss on equity investment related to Tatex was immaterial for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011.

Tatex Thailand III, LLC

The Company has a 17.9% ownership interest in Tatex III. Approximately 68.7% of the remaining interests in Tatex III are owned by entities controlled by Wexford. During the three months ended March 31, 2012, Gulfport paid $483,000 in cash calls, increasing its total net investment in Tatex III to $8,731,000. The Company recognized a loss on equity investment of $34,000 and $56,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively, which is included in loss from equity method investments in the consolidated statements of operations.

Grizzly Oil Sands ULC

The Company, through its wholly owned subsidiary Grizzly Holdings Inc. (“Grizzly Holdings”), owns a 24.9999% interest in Grizzly Oil Sands ULC, a Canadian unlimited liability company (“Grizzly”). The remaining interests in Grizzly are owned by entities controlled by Wexford. Since 2006, Grizzly has acquired leases in the

10

Table of Contents

Athabasca region located in the Alberta Province near Fort McMurray and other oil sands development projects. Grizzly has drilled core holes and water supply test wells in eleven separate lease blocks for feasibility of oil production and conducted a seismic program. In March 2010, Grizzly filed an application in Alberta, Canada for the development of a SAGD facility at Algar Lake. In November 2011, the Government of Alberta provided a formal Order-in Council authorizing the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) to issue formal regulatory approval of the project. Fabrication and onsite construction on the first phase of development at Algar Lake is currently underway. During the three months ended March 31, 2012, Gulfport paid $67,063,000 in cash calls, increasing Gulfport’s net investment in Grizzly to $136,732,000. Grizzly’s functional currency is the Canadian dollar. The Company’s investment in Grizzly was increased by $939,000 and $706,000 as a result of a currency translation gain for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively. The Company recognized a loss on equity investment of $278,000 and $255,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively, which is included in loss from equity method investments in the consolidated statements of operations.

The Company, through Grizzly Holdings, entered into a loan agreement with Grizzly effective January 1, 2008, as amended from time-to-time, under which Grizzly borrowed funds from the Company. Interest was paid on a paid-in-kind basis by increasing the outstanding balance of the loan. The Company recognized interest income of approximately $36,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2011, which is included in interest income in the consolidated statements of operations. Effective December 7, 2011, Grizzly Holdings entered into a debt settlement agreement with Grizzly under which Grizzly agreed to satisfy the entire outstanding debt by issuing additional common shares of Grizzly with no effect to the composition of the ownership structure of Grizzly. At such date, the Company’s investment in Grizzly increased by the total $22,325,000 of outstanding advances and accrued interest due from Grizzly, the cumulative $75,000 currency translation loss for the note receivable was adjusted through accumulated other comprehensive income and the note receivable was considered paid in full.

Bison Drilling and Field Services LLC

During the third quarter of 2011, the Company purchased a 25% ownership interest in Bison Drilling and Field Services LLC (“Bison”) at a cost of $6,009,000, subject to adjustment. The remaining interests in Bison are owned by entities controlled by Wexford. Bison owns and operates drilling rigs. The loss on equity investment related to Bison was immaterial for the three months ended March 31, 2012. Subsequent to March 31, 2012, the Company purchased an additional 15% ownership interest in Bison for $6,152,000, bringing its total ownership interest in Bison to 40%.

Muskie Holdings LLC

During the fourth quarter of 2011, the Company purchased a 25% ownership interest in Muskie Holdings LLC (“Muskie”) at a cost of $2,142,000, subject to adjustment. The remaining interests in Muskie are owned by entities controlled by Wexford. Muskie holds certain assets, real estate and rights in a lease covering land in Wisconsin that is prospective for mining oil and natural gas fracture grade sand. During the three months ended March 31, 2012, Gulfport paid $312,000 in cash calls, increasing its total net investment in Muskie to $2,441,000. The loss on equity investment related to Muskie was immaterial for the three months ended March 31, 2012.

Timber Wolf Terminals LLC

During the first quarter of 2012, the Company purchased a 50% ownership interest in Timber Wolf Terminals LLC (“Timber Wolf”) at a cost of $1,000,000. The remaining interests in Timber Wolf are owned by entities controlled by Wexford. Timber Wolf will operate a crude/condensate terminal and a sand transloading facility in Ohio. No income or loss on equity investment was recognized for the three months ended March 31, 2012.

Windsor Midstream LLC

During the first quarter of 2012, the Company purchased a 22.5% ownership interest in Windsor Midstream LLC (“Midstream”) at a cost of $7,021,000. The remaining interests in Midstream are owned by entities controlled by Wexford. Midstream owns a 28.4% interest in MidMar Gas LLC, a gas processing plant in West Texas. The Company recognized income on equity investment of $59,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2012, which is included in loss from equity method investments in the consolidated statements of operations.

11

Table of Contents

Other assets consist of the following as of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011:

A breakdown of long-term debt as of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011 is as follows:

Maturities of long-term debt as of March 31, 2012 are as follows:

(1) On September 30, 2010, the Company entered into a $100.0 million senior secured revolving credit agreement with The Bank of Nova Scotia, as administrative agent and letter of credit issuer and lead arranger, and Amegy Bank National Association. The revolving credit facility initially matured on September 30, 2013 and had an initial borrowing base availability of $50.0 million, which was increased to $65.0 million effective December 24, 2010. The credit agreement is secured by substantially all of the Company’s assets. The Company’s wholly-owned subsidiaries guaranteed the obligations of the Company under the credit agreement.

On May 3, 2011, the Company entered into a first amendment to the revolving credit agreement with The Bank of Nova Scotia, Amegy Bank, Key Bank National Association (“Key Bank”) and Société Générale. Pursuant to the terms of the first amendment, Key Bank and Société Générale were added as additional lenders, the maximum amount of the facility was increased to $350.0 million, the borrowing base was increased to $90.0 million, certain fees and rates payable by the Company under the credit agreement were decreased, and the maturity date was extended until May 3, 2015. On October 31, 2011, the Company entered into additional amendments to its revolving credit facility pursuant to which, among other things, the borrowing base under this facility was increased to $125.0 million. Effective May 2, 2012, the Company entered into additional amendments to its revolving credit facility pursuant to which, among other things, the borrowing base was increased to $155.0 million and Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas and Iberiabank were added as additional lenders and Société Générale left the bank group. As of March 31, 2012, approximately $10,000,000 was outstanding under the credit agreement.

Advances under the credit agreement, as amended, may be in the form of either base rate loans or eurodollar loans. The interest rate for base rate loans is equal to (1) the applicable rate, which ranges from 1.00% to 2.50%, plus (2) the highest of: (a) the federal funds rate plus 0.5%, (b) the rate of interest in effect for such day as publicly announced from time to time by agent as its “prime rate,” and (c) the eurodollar rate for an interest period of one month plus 1.00%. The interest rate for

12

Table of Contents

eurodollar loans is equal to (1) the applicable rate, which ranges from 2.00% to 3.50%, plus (2) the London interbank offered rate that appears on Reuters Screen LIBOR01 Page for deposits in U.S. dollars, or, if such rate is not available, the offered rate on such other page or service that displays the average British Bankers Association Interest Settlement Rate for deposits in U.S. dollars, or, if such rate is not available, the average quotations for three major New York money center banks of whom the agent shall inquire as the “London Interbank Offered Rate” for deposits in U.S. dollars. At March 31, 2012, amounts borrowed under the credit agreement bore interest at the base rate (4.25%).

The credit agreement contains customary negative covenants including, but not limited to, restrictions on the Company’s and its subsidiaries’ ability to: incur indebtedness; grant liens; pay dividends and make other restricted payments; make investments; make fundamental changes; enter into swap contracts and forward sales contracts; dispose of assets; change the nature of their business; and enter into transactions with their affiliates. The negative covenants are subject to certain exceptions as specified in the credit agreement. The credit agreement also contains certain affirmative covenants, including, but not limited to the following financial covenants: (1) the ratio of funded debt to EBITDAX (net income, excluding any non-cash revenue or expense associated with swap contracts resulting from ASC 815, plus without duplication and to the extent deducted from revenues in determining net income, the sum of (a) the aggregate amount of consolidated interest expense for such period, (b) the aggregate amount of income, franchise, capital or similar tax expense (other than ad valorem taxes) for such period, (c) all amounts attributable to depletion, depreciation, amortization and asset or goodwill impairment or writedown for such period, (d) all other non-cash charges, (e) non-cash losses from minority investments, (f) actual cash distributions received from minority investments, (g) to the extent actually reimbursed by insurance, expenses with respect to liability on casualty events or business interruption, and (h) all reasonable transaction expenses related to dispositions and acquisitions of assets, investments and debt and equity offering, and less non-cash income attributable to equity income from minority investments) for a twelve-month period may not be greater than 2.00 to 1.00; and (2) the ratio of EBITDAX to interest expense for a twelve-month period may not be less than 3.00 to 1.00. The Company was in compliance with all covenants at March 31, 2012.

(2) In March 2011, the Company entered into a new building loan agreement for the office building it occupies in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The new loan agreement refinanced the $2.4 million outstanding under the previous building loan agreement. The new agreement extended the maturity date of the building loan to February 2016 and reduced the interest rate to 5.82% per annum. The new building loan requires monthly interest and principal payments of approximately $22,000 and is collateralized by the Oklahoma City office building and associated land.

During the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, the Company’s stock-based compensation expense was $1,135,000 and $128,000, respectively, of which the Company capitalized $454,000 and $51,000, respectively, relating to its exploration and development efforts. Options and restricted common stock are reported as share based payments and their fair value is amortized to expense using the straight-line method over the vesting period. The shares of stock issued once the options are exercised will be from authorized but unissued common stock.

The fair value of each option award is estimated on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option valuation model that uses certain assumptions. Expected volatilities are based on the historical volatility of the market price of Gulfport’s common stock over a period of time ending on the grant date. Based upon historical experience of the Company, the expected term of options granted is equal to the vesting period plus one year. The risk-free rate for periods within the contractual life of the option is based on the U.S. Treasury yield curve in effect at the time of the grant. The 2005 Stock Incentive Plan provides that all options must have an exercise price not less than the fair value of the Company’s common stock on the date of the grant.

No stock options were issued during the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011.

The Company has not declared dividends and does not intend to do so in the foreseeable future, and thus did not use a dividend yield. In each case, the actual value that will be realized, if any, depends on the future performance of the common stock and overall stock market conditions. There is no assurance that the value an optionee actually realizes will be at or near the value estimated using the Black-Scholes model.

13

Table of Contents

A summary of the status of stock options and related activity for the three months ended March 31, 2012 is presented below:

The following table summarizes information about the stock options outstanding at March 31, 2012:

The following table summarizes restricted stock activity for the three months ended March 31, 2012:

Unrecognized compensation expense as of March 31, 2012 related to outstanding stock options and restricted shares was $9,943,000. The expense is expected to be recognized over a weighted average period of 1.86 years.

A reconciliation of the components of basic and diluted net income per common share is presented in the table below:

14

Table of Contents

There were no potential shares of common stock that were considered anti-dilutive during the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011.

In May 2011, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2011-04, “Fair Value Measurement: Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRS,” which provides amendments to FASB ASC Topic 820, “Fair Value Measurements and Disclosure” (“FASB ASC 820”). The purpose of the amendments in this update is to create common fair value measurement and disclosure requirements between GAAP and IFRS. The amendments change certain fair value measurement principles and enhance the disclosure requirements. The amendments to FASB ASC 820 are effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2011. The adoption did not have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

In June 2011, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2011-05, “Comprehensive Income: Presentation of Comprehensive Income,” which provides amendments to FASB ASC Topic 220, “Comprehensive Income” (“FASB ASC 220”). The purpose of the amendments in this update is to provide a more consistent method of presenting non-owner transactions that affect an entity’s equity. The amendments eliminate the option to report other comprehensive income and its components in the statement of changes in stockholders’ equity and require an entity to present the total of comprehensive income, the components of net income and the components of other comprehensive income either in a single continuous statement or in two separate but consecutive statements. The amendments to FASB ASC 220 are effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2011 and should be applied retrospectively. The components of other comprehensive income and total comprehensive income are presented in the accompanying consolidated statements of comprehensive income (loss).

Plugging and Abandonment Funds

In connection with the acquisition in 1997 of the remaining 50% interest in the WCBB properties, the Company assumed the seller’s (Chevron) obligation to contribute approximately $18,000 per month through March 2004, to a plugging and abandonment trust and the obligation to plug a minimum of 20 wells per year for 20 years commencing March 11, 1997. Chevron retained a security interest in production from these properties until abandonment obligations to Chevron have been fulfilled. Beginning in 2009, the Company could access the trust for use in plugging and abandonment charges associated with the property, although it has not yet done so. As of March 31, 2012, the plugging and abandonment trust totaled approximately $3,121,000. At March 31, 2012, the Company had plugged 334 wells at WCBB since it began its plugging program in 1997, which management believes fulfills its current minimum plugging obligation.

Litigation

The Louisiana Department of Revenue (“LDR”) is disputing Gulfport’s severance tax payments to the State of Louisiana from the sale of oil under fixed price contracts during the years 2005 to 2007. The LDR maintains that Gulfport paid approximately $1,800,000 less in severance taxes under fixed price terms than the severance taxes Gulfport would have had to pay had it paid severance taxes on the oil at the contracted market rates only. Gulfport has denied any liability to the LDR for underpayment of severance taxes and has maintained that it was entitled to enter into the fixed price contracts with unrelated third parties and pay severance taxes based upon the proceeds received under those contracts. Gulfport has maintained its right to contest any final assessment or suit for collection if brought by the State. On April 20, 2009, the LDR filed a lawsuit in the 15^th Judicial District Court, Lafayette Parish, in Louisiana against Gulfport seeking $2,275,729 in severance taxes, plus interest and court costs. Gulfport filed a response denying any liability to the LDR for underpayment of severance taxes and is defending itself in the lawsuit. The LDR had taken no further action on this lawsuit since filing its petition until recently when it propounded discovery requests to which Gulfport has responded. Gulfport recently served discovery requests on the LDR and received the LDR’s responses. The case is still in its early phases of discovery.

In December 2010, the LDR filed two identical lawsuits against Gulfport in different venues to recover allegedly underpaid severance taxes on crude oil for the period January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2010, together with a claim for attorney’s fees. The petitions do not make any specific claim for damages or unpaid taxes. As with the first lawsuit filed by the LDR in 2009, Gulfport denies all liability and will vigorously defend the lawsuit. The cases are in the early stages, and Gulfport has not yet filed a response to the recent lawsuits. Recently, the LDR filed motions to stay the lawsuits before Gulfport filed any responsive pleadings. The LDR has advised Gulfport that it intends to pursue settlement discussions with Gulfport and other similarly situated defendants in separate proceedings. There has been no activity on either of these lawsuits for more than a year.

15

Table of Contents

Other Litigation

In November 2006, Cudd Pressure Control, Inc. (“Cudd”) filed a lawsuit against Gulfport, Great White Pressure Control LLC (“Great White”) and six former Cudd employees in the 129th Judicial District Harris County, Texas. The lawsuit was subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division). The lawsuit alleged RICO violations and several other causes of action relating to Great White’s employment of the former Cudd employees and sought unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief. On stipulation by the parties, the plaintiff’s RICO claim was dismissed without prejudice by order of the court on February 14, 2007. Gulfport filed a motion for summary judgment on October 5, 2007. The court entered a final interlocutory judgment in favor of all defendants, including Gulfport, on April 8, 2008. On November 3, 2008, Cudd filed its appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court decision finding, among other things, that the district court should not have entered summary judgment without first allowing more discovery. The case was remanded to the district court, and Cudd filed a motion to remand the case to the original state court, which motion was granted. On February 3, 2010, Cudd filed its second amended petition with the state court (a) alleging that Gulfport conspired with the other defendants to misappropriate, and misappropriated Cudd’s trade secrets and caused its employees to breach their fiduciary duties, and (b) seeking unspecified monetary damages. On April 13, 2010, Gulfport’s motion to be dismissed from the proceeding for lack of personal jurisdiction was denied. This state court proceeding is in its initial stages. In 2011, the parties have continued with written discovery and production of documents. On February 15, 2011, Cudd filed a third amended petition seeking $26.5 million (based on a report prepared by its expert) plus disgorgement of $6 million in payments by Great White to the individual defendants and punitive damages. Gulfport denies these claims with respect to itself. Recently, the parties have been taking additional depositions and it is anticipated that the case will remain active as the parties prepare for a trial in September.

On July 30, 2010, six individuals and one limited liability company sued 15 oil and gas companies in Cameron Parish Louisiana for contamination across the surface of where the defendants operated in an action entitled Reeds et al. v. BP American Production Company et al., 38th Judicial District. No. 10-18714. The plaintiffs’ original petition for damages, which did not name Gulfport as a defendant, alleges that the plaintiffs’ property located in Cameron Parish, Louisiana within the Hackberry oil field is contaminated as a result of historic oil and gas exploration and production activities. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants conducted, directed and participated in various oil and gas exploration and production activities on their property which allegedly have contaminated or otherwise caused damage to the property, and have sued the defendants for alleged breaches of oil, gas and mineral leases, as well as for alleged negligence, trespass, failure to warn, strict liability, punitive damages, lease liability, contract liability, unjust enrichment, restoration damages, assessment and response costs and stigma damages. On December 7, 2010, Gulfport was served with a copy of the plaintiffs’ first supplemental and amending petition which added four additional plaintiffs and six additional defendants, including Gulfport, bringing the total number of defendants to 21. It also increased the total acreage at issue in this litigation from 240 acres to approximately 1,700 acres. In addition to the damages sought in the original petition, the plaintiffs now also seek: damages sufficient to cover the cost of conducting a comprehensive environmental assessment of all present and yet unidentified pollution and contamination of their property; the cost to restore the property to its pre-polluted original condition; damages for mental anguish and annoyance, discomfort and inconvenience caused by the nuisance created by defendants; land loss and subsidence damages and the cost of backfilling canals and other excavations; damages for loss of use of land and lost profits and income; attorney fees and expenses and damages for evaluation and remediation of any contamination that threatens groundwater. In addition to Gulfport, current defendants include ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, Mobil Exploration & Producing North America Inc., Chevron U.S.A. Inc., The Superior Oil Company, Union Oil Company of California, BP America Production Company, Tempest Oil Company, Inc., ConocoPhillips Company, Continental Oil Company, WM. T. Burton Industries, Inc., Freeport Sulphur Company, Eagle Petroleum Company, U.S. Oil of Louisiana, M&S Oil Company, and Empire Land Corporation, Inc. of Delaware. On January 21, 2011, Gulfport filed a pleading challenging the legal sufficiency of the petitions on several grounds and requesting that they either be dismissed or that plaintiffs be required to amend such petitions. In response to the pleadings filed by Gulfport and similar pleadings filed by other defendants, the plaintiffs filed a third amending petition with exhibits which expands the description of the property at issue, attaches numerous aerial photos and identifies the mineral leases at issue. In response, Gulfport and numerous defendants re-urged their pleadings challenging the legal sufficiency of the petitions. Some of the defendants’ grounds for challenging the plaintiffs’ petitions were heard by the court on May 25, 2011 and were denied. The court signed the written judgment on December 9, 2011. Gulfport noticed its intent to seek supervisory review on December 19, 2011 and the trial court fixed a return date of January 11, 2012 for the filing of the writ application. Gulfport filed its supervisory writ, which was recently denied by the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal. Gulfport intends to take a writ to the Louisiana Supreme Court on this issue. Gulfport has been active in serving discovery requests and responding to discovery requests from the plaintiffs. It is anticipated that the discovery phase of this case will become more active in the upcoming months. Plaintiffs’ counsel is seeking a trial date in mid-2013.

16

Table of Contents

Due to the current stages of the above litigation, the outcomes are uncertain and management cannot determine the amount of loss, if any, that may result. Litigation is inherently uncertain. Adverse decisions in one or more of the above matters could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.

The Company has been named as a defendant in various other litigation matters. The ultimate resolution of these matters is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations for the periods presented in the consolidated financial statements.

The Company seeks to reduce its exposure to unfavorable changes in oil prices, which are subject to significant and often volatile fluctuation, by entering into fixed price swaps and forward sales contracts. These contracts allow the Company to predict with greater certainty the effective oil prices to be received for hedged production and benefit operating cash flows and earnings when market prices are less than the fixed prices provided in the contracts. However, the Company will not benefit from market prices that are higher than the fixed prices in the contracts for hedged production.

The Company accounts for its oil derivative instruments as cash flow hedges for accounting purposes under FASB ASC 815 and related pronouncements. All derivative contracts are marked to market each quarter end and are included in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets as derivative assets and liabilities.

During the third quarter of 2011 and the first quarter of 2012, the Company entered into fixed price swap contracts for 2012 and 2013 with the purchaser of the Company’s WCBB oil and two financial institutions. The Company’s fixed price swap contracts are tied to the commodity prices on the International Petroleum Exchange (“IPE”). The Company will receive the fixed price amount stated in the contract and pay to its counterparty the current market price for oil as listed on the IPE for Brent Crude. At March 31, 2012, the Company had the following fixed price swaps in place:

At March 31, 2012 the fair value of derivative liabilities related to the fixed price swaps was as follows:

All fixed price swaps and forward sales contracts have been executed in connection with the Company’s oil price hedging program. For fixed price swaps qualifying as cash flow hedges pursuant to FASB ASC 815, the realized contract price is included in oil sales in the period for which the underlying production was hedged.

For derivatives designated as cash flow hedges and meeting the effectiveness guidelines of FASB ASC 815, changes in fair value are recognized in accumulated other comprehensive income until the hedged item is recognized in earnings. Amounts reclassified out of accumulated other comprehensive income into earnings as a component of oil and condensate sales for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011 are presented below.

The Company expects to reclassify $9,145,000 out of accumulated other comprehensive income into earnings as a component of oil and condensate sales during the remainder of the year ended December 31, 2012 related to fixed price swaps.

Hedge effectiveness is measured at least quarterly based on the relative changes in fair value between the derivative contract and the hedged item over time. Any change in fair value resulting from ineffectiveness is recognized immediately in earnings. The Company recognized a loss of $266,000 related to hedge ineffectiveness for the three months ended March 31, 2012, which is included in oil and condensate sales in the consolidated statements of operations. The Company did not recognize into earnings any amount related to hedge ineffectiveness for the three months ended March 31, 2011.

17

Table of Contents

The Company follows FASB ASC 820 for all financial and non-financial assets and liabilities. FASB ASC 820 defines fair value as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability (exit price) in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. The statement establishes market or observable inputs as the preferred sources of values, followed by assumptions based on hypothetical transactions in the absence of market inputs. The statement requires fair value measurements be classified and disclosed in one of the following categories:

Level 1 – Quoted prices in active markets for identical assets and liabilities.

Level 2 – Quoted prices in active markets for similar assets and liabilities, quoted prices for identical or similar instruments in markets that are not active and model-derived valuations whose inputs are observable or whose significant value drivers are observable.

Level 3 – Significant inputs to the valuation model are unobservable.

Financial assets and liabilities are classified based on the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement.

The following table summarizes the Company’s financial assets and liabilities by FASB ASC 820 valuation level as of March 31, 2012:

The estimated fair value of the Company’s fixed price swaps was based upon forward commodity prices based on quoted market prices, adjusted for differentials.

The Company estimates asset retirement obligations pursuant to the provisions of FASB ASC Topic 410, “Asset Retirement and Environmental Obligations” (“FASB ASC 410”). The initial measurement of asset retirement obligations at fair value is calculated using discounted cash flow techniques and based on internal estimates of future retirement costs associated with oil and gas properties. Given the unobservable nature of the inputs, including plugging costs and reserve lives, the initial measurement of the asset retirement obligation liability is deemed to use Level 3 inputs. See Note 3 for further discussion of the Company’s asset retirement obligations. Asset retirement obligations incurred during the three months ended March 31, 2012 were approximately $598,000.

The carrying amounts on the accompanying consolidated balance sheet for cash and cash equivalents, accounts receivable, accounts payable and accrued liabilities, and current and long-term debt are carried at cost, which approximates market value.

On May 7, 2012, the Company entered into a contribution agreement with Diamondback Energy, Inc., (“Diamondback”). Under the terms of the contribution agreement, the Company agreed to contribute to Diamondback, prior to the closing of the Diamondback initial public offering (“Diamondback IPO”), all its oil and gas interests in the Permian Basin in exchange for (i) shares of common stock representing 35% of Diamondback’s outstanding common stock immediately prior to the closing of the Diamondback IPO and (ii) $63,590,050.00 in the form of a non-interest bearing promissory note, which will be repaid in full upon the closing of the Diamondback IPO with a portion of the net proceeds from that offering. The aggregate consideration payable to the Company is subject to a post-closing cash adjustment based on changes in the working capital, long-term debt and other items of Windsor Permian LLC (“Windsor Permian”) referred to in the contribution agreement as of the date of the contribution. Windsor Permian, an entity controlled by Wexford, is the operator of the Company’s acreage to be contributed and will be a wholly-owned subsidiary of Diamondback at the time of the contribution. The Company’s obligation to make this contribution is contingent upon, among other things, the contribution to Diamondback of all the outstanding equity interests in Windsor Permian, the Company’s satisfaction with the terms of the Diamondback IPO and customary closing conditions. Under the contribution agreement, the Company is generally responsible for all liabilities and obligations with respect to the contributed properties arising prior to the contribution and Diamondback is responsible for such liabilities and obligations with respect to the contributed properties arising after the contribution.

In connection with the contribution, the Company and Diamondback will enter into an investor rights agreement in which the Company will have the right, for so long as it beneficially owns more than 10% of Diamondback’s outstanding common stock, to designate one individual as a nominee to serve on Diamondback’s board of directors. Such nominee, if elected to Diamondback’s board, will also serve on each committee of the board so long as he or she satisfies the independence and other requirements for service on the applicable committee of the board. So long as the Company has the right to designate a nominee to Diamondback’s board and there is no Gulfport nominee actually serving as a Diamondback director, the Company will have the right to appoint one individual as an advisor to the board who shall be entitled to attend board and committee meetings. The Company will also be entitled to certain information rights and Diamondback will grant the Company certain demand and “piggyback” registration rights obligating Diamondback to register with the SEC any shares of Diamondback common stock that the Company owns. If the contribution is completed, the Company will own a 35% equity interest in Diamondback immediately prior to the closing of the Diamondback IPO, rather than leasehold interests in the Company’s Permian Basin acreage.

18

Table of Contents

The following discussion and analysis should be read in conjunction with the “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” section and audited consolidated financial statements and related notes thereto included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K and with the unaudited consolidated financial statements and related notes thereto presented in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q.

Disclosure Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

This report includes “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act. All statements other than statements of historical facts included in this report that address activities, events or developments that we expect or anticipate will or may occur in the future, including such things as estimated future net revenues from oil and gas reserves and the present value thereof, future capital expenditures (including the amount and nature thereof), business strategy and measures to implement strategy, competitive strength, goals, expansion and growth of our business and operations, plans, references to future success, reference to intentions as to future matters and other such matters are forward-looking statements. These statements are based on certain assumptions and analyses made by us in light of our experience and our perception of historical trends, current conditions and expected future developments as well as other factors we believe are appropriate in the circumstances. However, whether actual results and developments will conform with our expectations and predictions is subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, general economic, market or business conditions; the opportunities (or lack thereof) that may be presented to and pursued by us; competitive actions by other oil and natural gas companies; changes in laws or regulations; hurricanes and other natural disasters and other factors, including those listed in the “Risk Factors” section of our most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K, many of which are beyond our control. Consequently, all of the forward-looking statements made in this report are qualified by these cautionary statements, and we cannot assure you that the actual results or developments anticipated by us will be realized or, even if realized, that they will have the expected consequences to or effects on us, our business or operations. We have no intention, and disclaim any obligation, to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future results or otherwise.

Overview

We are an independent oil and natural gas exploration and production company with our principal producing properties located along the Louisiana Gulf Coast in the West Cote Blanche Bay, or WCBB, and Hackberry fields, and in West Texas in the Permian Basin. During 2010, we acquired our initial acreage position in the Niobrara Formation of northwestern Colorado. During 2011, we acquired our initial acreage position in the Utica Shale in Eastern Ohio and our first well in the Utica Shale was spud in February 2012. We also hold a significant acreage position in the Alberta oil sands in Canada through our interest in Grizzly Oil Sands ULC, or Grizzly, and have interests in entities that operate in Southeast Asia, including the Phu Horm gas field in Thailand. We seek to achieve reserve growth and increase our cash flow through our annual drilling programs.

Contribution

On May 7, 2012, we entered into a contribution agreement with Diamondback Energy, Inc., or Diamondback. Under the terms of the contribution agreement, we agreed to contribute to Diamondback, prior to the closing of Diamondback’s initial public offering, or the Diamondback IPO, all our oil and gas interests in the Permian Basin in exchange for (i) shares of common stock representing 35% of Diamondback’s outstanding common stock immediately prior to the closing of the Diamondback IPO and (ii) $63,590,050.00 in the form of a non-interest bearing promissory note, which will be repaid in full upon the closing of the Diamondback IPO with a portion of the net proceeds from that offering. The aggregate consideration payable to us is subject to a post-closing cash adjustment based on changes in the working capital, long-term debt and other items of Windsor Permian LLC, or Windsor Permian, referred to in the contribution agreement as of the date of the contribution. Windsor Permian, an entity controlled by Wexford, is the operator of the acreage to be contributed by us and will be a wholly-owned subsidiary of Diamondback at the time of our contribution. Our obligation to make this contribution is contingent upon, among other things, the contribution to Diamondback of all the outstanding equity interests in Windsor Permian, our satisfaction with the terms of the Diamondback IPO and customary closing conditions. Under the contribution agreement, we are generally responsible for all liabilities and obligations with respect to the contributed properties arising prior to the contribution and Diamondback is responsible for such liabilities and obligations with respect to the contributed properties arising after the contribution.

19

Table of Contents

In connection with the contribution, we and Diamondback will enter into an investor rights agreement in which we will have the right, for so long as we beneficially own more than 10% of Diamondback’s outstanding common stock, to designate one individual as a nominee to serve on Diamondback’s board of directors. Such nominee, if elected to Diamondback’s board, will also serve on each committee of the board so long as he or she satisfies the independence and other requirements for service on the applicable committee of the board. So long as we have the right to designate a nominee to Diamondback’s board and there is no Gulfport nominee actually serving as a Diamondback director, we will have the right to appoint one individual as an advisor to the board who shall be entitled to attend board and committee meetings. We will also be entitled to certain information rights and Diamondback will grant us certain demand and “piggyback” registration rights obligating Diamondback to register with the SEC any shares of Diamondback common stock that we own. If the contribution is completed, we will own a 35% equity interest in Diamondback immediately prior to the closing of the Diamondback IPO, rather than leasehold interests in our Permian Basin acreage.

First Quarter 2012 Operational Highlights