SEAPEX 2017 Central Luconia Exploration Update: Are we good or did we just get lucky? James Clark Paul Owen Sean O Brien Barry Dawe

SEAPEX 2017 Central Luconia Exploration Update: Are we good or did we just get lucky? James Clark Paul Owen Sean O Brien Barry Dawe

Presentation Outline Introduction Exploration Recap Phase 2 results Impact of New 3D seismic Look forward Phase 3 drilling 20km Sapura Energy would like to acknowledge the support of Petronas and JV partners Petronas Carigali and Shell, both as contributors and for their permission to give this presentation. Sapura Energy also acknowledges Shell and Mubadala as joint operators of the Terumbu 3D seismic survey for permission to show certain images. The technical opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not represent corporate positions of either Sapura Energy, JV partners or Petronas 2

SK408: Introduction NORTH LUCONIA Terumbu 3D outline SKE and co-ventures PCSB and SSB have drilled 8 wells in the SK408 PSC resulting in 7 gas discoveries CENTRAL LUCONIA SK408 BARAM DELTA The first 5 wells targeted relatively small, low relief carbonate pinnacles and was 100% successful The 2nd phase leveraged the previous well results and targeted larger pinnacles, also with great success BALINGIAN This presentation examines whether the pre-drill geologic models are still valid after analysing the well results and the ~13,000km 2 of new Broadband 3D seismic data (4,200km 2 within SK408) 100km SARAWAK 3

Central Luconia Stratigraphy Top Cycle V TYPE 3 CYCLE VI-VIII TYPE 2 TYPE 1 TYPE 4 CYCLE IV/V CARBONATE PLAY TYPE 1 Top Cycle V TYPE 2 Lwr Cycle 5 shales form topseal High success rate Large column height potential Cycle 6 shales form topseal High success rate Low column heights Frequently filled to spill in Cycle 5 sands TYPE 3 TYPE 4 Relying on Cycle 5 topsets to seal Very low success rate Helps if Cycle 5 forms anticline over crest of pinnacle Beyond outboard extent of Cycle V shelf Shale-prone post MMU sequence High success rate Large columns 4

Carbonate Play Type Classification SK408 TYPE 1 TYPE 3 TYPE 2 TYPE 2 TYPE 1 TYPE 3 TYPE 4 S N Top Cycle V Cycle VI-Recent Cycle IV-V Cycle III Cycle I-II The post-mmu carbonate play has distinct sub-categories that have independent risk profiles for charge and seal, different volume (column height) expectations and potentially different pressure regimes SKE s realisation of the above was a key step in successfully evaluating the remaining prospectivity in SK408 and led to the focus on Type 1 pinnacles in phase 1 5

Phase 2 results firstly the bad news WELL P WELL P Top Cycle V WNW ESE SSW NNE Top Carb WELL P Top Cycle I At the 8th attempt the SK408 JV drilled the first dry hole in the block Based on 2D the deep charge focus (underlying structure) was thought to be present New 3D seismic data suggests the deep structure is dispersive Seal failure is ruled out as the overburden was dominantly shales and the pinnacle was significantly overpressured SapuraKencana Petroleum March 2017 6

SK408: Upper Cycle V correlation (from SEC2015) W Well B Well L Well G Well T E Top Cycle V Well B Well L Well G Well T Note reduction in sand content of overburden from East to West Fits with observation of filled-to-spill carbonates in Wells D&E compared with underfilled structures in Wells A&B 7

Implications for Carbonate Prospectivity (from SEC2015) Multi-TCF potential in formerly high risk Type 3 pinnacle: de-risked due to lack of thief beds Detail map location SK320 SK318 SK408 SK319 Terumbu 3D outline Well B Well J A A No sands seen in Upper Cycle V in Well B Top Cycle V Bright reflectors are not thief sands 50km Top Carb Top Carbonate Structure Base Carb Mixed vintage 2D seismic 5km Well B Well J A A Well J A Top Cycle V Well B A Top Carb 5km Base Carb 2016 PSTM 3D seismic 5km 8

PMCD Conventional ResD/ResS Ratio of deep Res/shallow Res Well J Log interpretation Well J drilled 400m of gas column before total losses meant that the remaining section was drilled using PMCD Top carbonate 100.0 PMCD gas response Density (g/cc) 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 PMCD uses seawater pumped through the drill-string as the mud which suppresses the true formation resistivity 10.0 100 PMCD wet response The better the reservoir quality the more seawater invasion affects the resistivity making gas saturations very hard to interpret 1.0 0.1 1 Well J ResD/ResS - PMCD all LOW Well N ResD/ResS - PMCD water zone Well J ResD/ResS - PMCD Porosity lowest 60m HIGH In tight reservoir there is little or no invasion and the deep and shallow tools read the same Acquisition of additional PMCD data in a water wet section of a subsequent well helps the interpretation in well J Well J Deep Resisivity In highly porous reservoirs the invasion is so deep that the deep and shallow tools read the same In intermediate reservoirs the shallow tool reads the invasion zone whilst the deep tool may read the formation fluid resistivity 9

Depth (mtvdss) Well J Results Pressure data Pressure data defines a common regional aquifer across Platforms PL2/PL3/ PL4/PL5 likely connected by regional Cycle V sands Adjacent pinnacles commonly are within the same aquifer Resultant column interpretation for Well J ~960m Well N Pressure (psi) 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Well J pressures 960m Well N gas Well J gas PL3 gas Well B Gas Well L gas PL5 gas Well N water Well L water Well B water PL2-3-4-5 Aquifer PL1 water hydrostatic (0.43psi/ft) Linear (Well N gas) Well B Well J PL5 PL4 2200 Linear (Well J gas) Linear (PL3 gas) PL3 PL2-5 aquifer PL2 PL1 PL1 aquifer Top Carbonate Structure Well L 10km 2400 2600 2800 Linear (Well B Gas) Linear (Well L gas) Linear (PL5 gas) Linear (PL2-3-4-5 Aquifer) Linear (PL1 water) 10

SK408 Discovery Wells GR Well J Well B Well N Well L Well I Well G Well T Sg GR Sg GR Sg GR Sg GR Sg GR Sg GR Sg Top Carbonate -1407m -1660m -1824m -2003m -1963m -2150m -2468m 100m 200m GWC-1928m GWC-2102m 300m GWC-2384m GWC-2687m 400m GWC-2337m 500m 600m Well P (dry) 700m GWC-2260m Well N 800m Well J Well T 900m Well B Well G GWC--2360m Interpreted gas saturations for the SK408 discoveries SKE have drilled over 2.5km of gross gas column across the 7 discoveries in SK408 Top Carbonate Structure Well L Well I 10km 11

The New data: 3D interpretation Basin-wide dataset provides unique insights into interactions between carbonate reservoirs and clastic systems Approx limit of Cycle V shelf A more accurate assessment of Carbonate play type and associated risk is now possible 12

3D data: Regional Traverse Cycle VI-Recent Cycle IV-V Cycle III Cycle II Cycle I Basement? Regional NW-SE line through the Terumbu 3D seismic data Deep events now being seen for the first time the pre-existing 4-5s TWT 2D data never even saw the basement Basement extension focused in 2 or 3 major fault zones confined more to the north, Cycle I & II extension more distributed across numerous smaller faults clear evidence for detachment between basement and younger sediments SK320 SK318 SK408 Terumbu 3D outline Carbonates on structural highs? Yes, but not necessarily basement highs 50km SK319 13

Carbonates Classified according to Play Type CYCLE IV/V CARBONATE PLAY TYPE 1 Top Cycle V Lwr Cycle 5 shales form topseal High success rate Large column height potential Approx northerly limit of Cycle V shelf TYPE 2 TYPE 3 TYPE 4 Cycle 6 shales form topseal High success rate Low column heights Frequently filled to spill in Cycle 5 sands Relying on Cycle 5 topsets to seal Very low success rate Helps if Cycle 5 forms anticline over crest of pinnacle Beyond outboard extent of Cycle V shelf Shale-prone post MMU sequence High success rate Large columns 14

ACCUMULATIVE DISPERSIVE Charge risk model (pre 3D data) Prospect This simple model served its purpose in phases 1&2, however Possible source interval Prospect With more, higher quality data we can see more but this brings more questions. At what depth or horizon and at what scale (in terms of area) should we consider an underlying structure significant? MMU Top Cycle II Top Cycle I Basement Possible source interval And should local considerations in the immediate vicinity of the prospect outweigh a more regional view? 15

New Charge risk model considerations Cycle III Cycle II An example where the scale of investigation can alter the understanding of underlying structure Cycle I 5km Top Carbonate Cycle III Cycle II Intra Cycle II Base Carbonate Cycle I Examples where a deep Cycle I structure is overlain by Cycle II and MMU horizons without Top Cycle I structure The new 3D seismic has enabled interpretation of these structural configurations that were previously hidden 16

Pre Carbonate Structure N 10km Due to velocity effects TWT highs at MMU (base carbonate) are intimately associated with overlying carbonate build-ups However, at a larger scale the MMU structure does appear to be important 10km Regional depression dominated by failures Carbonates located over or on the flanks of regional highs are more likely to be successful compared to those located within structural depressions Accumulative vs dispersive structures at a regional scale may be important in explaining under-filled structures, particularly if the source rock is not high yield N 10km Regional High with dominantly successful results 17

Charge Ranking vs Discovered Volumes No discoveries with charge ranking <40% (11 wells) Charge ranking is a qualitative assessment based on a combination of underlying structures at various intervals and various scales along with indications of gas leakage from the structure When seal failures are excluded there is a clear relationship between the charge ranking and the gas volumes discovered 18

Underfilled Carbonates: the Thief bed conundrum W WELL L Thief bed? E The continuous 3D seismic volume enables confident mapping of stratigraphy between carbonate build-ups W 1km GWC GWC Note in both examples the GWC s are not flat in TWT due to carbonate velocity effects WELL T E In eastern SK408 there are numerous examples where an underfilled pinnacle with an associated onlapping thief bed can be mapped to an adjacent pinnacle where it is clearly not controlling the GWC No single intra-pinnacle event can be correlated to more than 1 pinnacle GWC GWC Thief bed? GWC Either each underfilled pinnacle has it s own personal thief bed or there is an alternative explanation 1km 19

Future Exploration the one that is too big to ignore S 10km N Top Cycle V Top Carbonate The SK408 JV plan to drill a large, isolated pinnacle in the NE of the block in late 2017 The main concern is carbonate overpressure and a leaking topseal constraining the column height, or an entirely blown trap The multi-tcf volume potential means that it would be hard to walk away from this one 20

Exploration Summary Simple geological criteria have been used to understand and assess the carbonate play in Central Luconia Successful prediction has increased confidence in our approach towards carbonate exploration New 3D seismic has highlighted some hitherto unseen complexities: Charge risking now considers multiple horizons at different scales The presence of thief beds controlling columns is debatable But overall the new 3D seismic data has not caused radical revisions of our geologic models The forward plan is for more of the same hopefully with similar results! 21