Competent Persons Report For CAMAC Energy Inc v1

CAMAC Energy Inc. Copy No.
EL-12-219600

COMPETENT PERSONS REPORT
ON CERTAIN PETROLEUM ASSETS
NIGERIA, GAMBIA AND KENYA

Prepared for

CAMAC ENERGY INC.

DECEMBER, 2013

www.gaffney-cline.com

CAMAC EL-12-219600
Page No.

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................... 5

DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................... 12

1. BACKGROUND TO BLOCKS OML 120 AND 121, NIGERIA ..................... 12

2. GEOLOGICAL SETTING ............................................................................ 14

3. EXPLORATION HISTORY AND GEOPHYSICAL DATABASE:
OML 120 AND 121 ..................................................................................... 17

4. OYO FIELD ................................................................................................ 19

4.1 History and Introduction .................................................................. 19
4.2 Geology .......................................................................................... 20
4.3 Geophysics ..................................................................................... 22
4.4 Reservoir Geology .......................................................................... 24
4.5 Field Development, Cost and Schedule .......................................... 26

4.5.1 Overview .............................................................................. 26
4.5.2 Capital and Operating Costs, Development Schedule .......... 27
4.5.3 Development of Adjacent Discoveries .................................. 27

4.6 Technical Assessment .................................................................... 28

4.6.1 FPSO and Marine ................................................................ 28
4.6.2 Wells and Drilling ................................................................. 28
4.6.3 Subsea Architecture ............................................................. 29

4.7 Development Uncertainties ............................................................. 30
4.8 Safety and Environmental ............................................................... 30
4.9 Oyo Central ..................................................................................... 30

4.9.1 Oil in Place........................................................................... 30
4.9.2 Reserves Estimation ............................................................ 31
4.9.3 Proved Reserves (1P) .......................................................... 31
4.9.4 Proved plus Probable (2P) ................................................... 34
4.9.5 Proved plus Probable plus Possible (3P) ............................. 35

4.10 Oyo West Field ............................................................................... 36

4.10.1 Oil in Place........................................................................... 36
4.10.2 Proved Reserves (1P) .......................................................... 37
4.10.3 Proved plus Probable (2P) ................................................... 38
4.10.4 Proved plus Probable plus Possible (3P) ............................. 39

4.11 Contingent Resources .................................................................... 39
4.12 Prospective Resources Deep Pool Potential at Oyo Field ............ 39

4.12.1 T1B Formation ..................................................................... 39

CAMAC Energy Inc. Copy No. EL-12-219600

Page No.

4.12.2 Upper Miocene .................................................................... 40
4.12.3 Other Potential ..................................................................... 42

5. OTHER DISCOVERIES .............................................................................. 43

5.1 Ebolibo-1 ........................................................................................ 43

6. PROSPECTIVE RESOURCES OML 120 AND 121 .................................... 46

6.1 Western OML 120 Miocene Prospects (Oil and Gas) ...................... 50

6.1.1 Prospect G ........................................................................... 50
6.1.2 Prospect Ereng .................................................................... 54
6.1.3 Prospect Ewo North Upthrown (UT) ..................................... 57
6.1.4 Prospect Ewo North Downthrown (DT) ................................ 60
6.1.5 Prospect Q ........................................................................... 64

6.2 Western OML 120 and 121: Pliocene Prospects (Oil and Gas) ....... 67

6.2.1 Prospect O ........................................................................... 67
6.2.2 Prospect P ........................................................................... 69

6.3 Eastern OML 121: Pliocene to Pleistocene Prospects (Gas) ........... 73

6.3.1 Prospect Kigbo .................................................................... 73

6.4 OML 120: Miocene Leads (Oil and Gas) ......................................... 76

6.4.1 Ereng B ................................................................................ 76
6.4.2 Ewo Deep ............................................................................ 76
6.4.3 Lead A ................................................................................. 80
6.4.4 Lead C ................................................................................. 82
6.4.5 Lead D ................................................................................. 84

6.5 Eastern OML 121: Pliocene to Pleistocene Leads (Gas) ................. 86

6.5.1 Lead R ................................................................................. 86
6.5.2 Onigu Lead .......................................................................... 88
6.5.3 Eba Lead ............................................................................. 90
6.5.4 Songu Lead ......................................................................... 92
6.5.5 Lead M ................................................................................. 94

6.6 OML 120: Miocene Leads ............................................................... 96

6.6.1 Kigbo Deep Lead ................................................................. 96

7. GAMBIA ..................................................................................................... 98

7.1 Background ..................................................................................... 98
7.2 Geological Setting ........................................................................... 98
7.3 Exploration History .......................................................................... 100


Page No.

7.4 Prospective Resources ................................................................... 101

7.4.1 West Lead............................................................................ 101
7.4.2 East Lead ............................................................................ 103

8. KENYA ............................................................................................ 104

8.1 Background ..................................................................................... 104
8.2 Geological Setting ........................................................................... 107
8.3 Exploration History .......................................................................... 108

8.3.1 Block L1B ............................................................................ 108
8.3.2 Block L16 ............................................................................. 108
8.3.3 Blocks L27 and L28 ............................................................. 108

8.4 Prospective Resources ................................................................... 109

8.4.1 Block L1B ............................................................................ 109
8.4.2 Block L16 ............................................................................. 110
8.4.3 Blocks L27 and L28 ............................................................. 110

9. ECONOMICS ............................................................................................. 111

9.1 Fiscal Terms ................................................................................... 111
9.2 Price and Inflation Assumptions ...................................................... 113
9.3 Results of Economic Evaluation ...................................................... 113

10. QUALIFICATIONS ...................................................................................... 114

11. BASIS OF OPINION ................................................................................... 114

Tables

0.1 CAMAC Licence Summary ......................................................................... 5
0.2 Summary of Gross and Net Hydrocarbon Reserves
as at 30
th
J une, 2013 .................................................................................. 6
0.3 Summary of Gross and Net Gas Contingent Resources
as at 30
th
J une, 2013 .................................................................................. 7
0.4 Summary of Gross Unrisked Prospective Resources (Prospects)
Nigeria as at 30
th
J une, 2013 ...................................................................... 8
0.5 Summary of Net Company Unrisked Prospective Resources
(Prospects) Nigeria as at 30
th
J une, 2013 ................................................... 9
0.6 Summary of Unrisked Prospective Resources (Leads) Nigeria
as at 30
th
J une, 2013 .................................................................................. 10
0.7 Summary of Unrisked Prospective Resources (Leads) Gambia
as at 30
th
J une, 2013 .................................................................................. 11
3.1 Previous Exploration Wells ......................................................................... 18
4.1 Hydrocarbons Initially in Place Oyo Central Field ....................................... 31
4.2 DCA Parameters per Well for the 3P Case ................................................. 35
4.3 Hydrocarbons Initially in Place Oyo West Field ........................................... 36


Page No.

4.4 Summary of Prospective Oil and Gas in Place Volumes Oyo T1B .............. 40
4.5 Summary of Prospective Oil and Gas in Place Volumes Oyo Deep ............ 42
5.1 Summary of Contingent Oil and Gas in Place Volumes Ebolibo.................. 44
5.2 Summary of Gross and Net Gas Contingent Resources Ebolibo
as at 30
th
J une, 2013 .................................................................................. 44
6.1 Summary of Gross Unrisked Prospective Resources (Prospects)
Nigeria as at 30
th
J une, 2013 ...................................................................... 47
6.2 Summary of Net Company Unrisked Prospective Resources (Prospects)
Nigeria as at 30
th
J une, 2013 ...................................................................... 48
6.3 Summary of Prospective Oil and Gas in Place Volumes Prospect G .......... 54
6.4 Summary of Prospective Oil and Gas in Place Volumes
Prospect Ereng ........................................................................................... 57
Prospect Ewo North UT .............................................................................. 60
Prospect Ewo North DT .............................................................................. 63
6.7 Summary of Prospective Oil and Gas in Place Volumes Prospect Q .......... 65
6.8 Summary of Prospective Oil and Gas in Place Volumes Prospect O .......... 68
6.9 Summary of Prospective Oil and Gas in Place Volumes Prospect P ........... 73
Prospect Kigbo ........................................................................................... 76
6.11 Summary of Unrisked Prospective Resources (Leads) Nigeria
as at 30
th
J une, 2013 .................................................................................. 77
7.1 Exploration Wells Gambia........................................................................... 101
7.2 Summary of Unrisked Prospective Resources (Leads) Gambia
as at 30
th
J une 2013 ................................................................................... 103
8.1 Work Commitments Onshore Blocks L1B and L16, Kenya ......................... 106
8.2 Work Commitments Offshore Blocks L27 and L28, Kenya .......................... 106
8.3 Exploration Wells Blocks L1B and L1A, Kenya ........................................... 108
8.4 Exploration Wells Blocks L06, L10A, L08 and L19, Kenya .......................... 108
9.1 GCA Brent Price Scenario Effective Q3 2013 ............................................. 113
9.2 Summary of Oyo Field Reserves Estimate as of 30
th
J une, 2013 ................ 113

Figures

0.1 Location Map for CAMAC African Assets .................................................... 2
1.1 Location Map for CAMAC Nigerian Assets ................................................. 13
2.1 Chronostratigraphic Diagram for the Northwest Offshore Niger Delta ......... 15
3.1 Seismic Data Coverage and Exploration Wells OML 120 and 121 .............. 17
4.1 Oyo Central Contoured Depth Structure Map Top T1A Reservoir ............... 21
4.2 Oyo West Contoured Depth Structure Top Unit 4 Reservoir
and RMS Amplitudes Representing Unit 3/4 Reservoir Unit ........................ 22
4.3 Vertical Seismic Section through Oyo Central Field with
Contoured Depth Map ................................................................................ 23
4.4 Vertical Seismic Section through Oyo West Field with
Contoured Depth Structure Map ................................................................. 24
4.5 Oyo Central RMS Amplitudes Interval from 30 msec above to 80 msec
below Top T1A Reservoir and Depth Structure Contours
at Top T1A Reservoir .................................................................................. 26
4.6 Oyo Field Schematic of Sub-Sea Layout .................................................... 29


Page No.

4.7 Oyo No. 5A ST Performance and 1P Forecast ........................................... 32
4.8 Oyo-5 Flowing Bottom-Hole Pressure ......................................................... 33
4.9 Location of Oyo Well Nos. 7, 8 and 9 .......................................................... 34
4.10 Performance Comparison for 1P, 2P and 3P .............................................. 36
4.11 Oyo No. 6 Historical Performance ............................................................... 37
4.12 1P Forecast for Oyo-6 ................................................................................ 38
4.13 Oyo Central Depth Structure Top Oyo Miocene Reservoir and
RMS Amplitudes (Far Stack Only) for Interval 50 msec Below .................... 41
4.14 RMS Amplitudes for Unit 3/4 at Oyo West Extrapolated into Oyo
Central Area, superimposed on Depth Structure Top T1A Reservoir .......... 42
5.1 Vertical Seismic Section through Ebolibo Discovery with
Depth Contoured Maximum Amplitude Map on A098 Pleistocene Horizon . 45
6.1 CAMAC Prospect and Lead Portfolio OML 120 and 121 ............................. 46
6.2 Vertical Seismic Section through Prospect G with
Depth Contoured Maximum Amplitude Map ............................................... 51
6.3 Stratigraphic Section applied to Prospect G Petrel Model ........................... 52
6.4 3D View to West of Prospect G Petrel Model .............................................. 53
6.5 Vertical Seismic Section (NNW-SSE) through Ereng A Prospect and
Ereng B Lead.............................................................................................. 55
6.6 Vertical Seismic Section (ENE-WSW) through Ereng A Prospect and
Ereng B Lead.............................................................................................. 55
6.7 Contoured Depth Structure Top Ereng A Sand and RMS Amplitudes
for Ereng A Interval ..................................................................................... 56
6.8 Vertical Seismic Section through Ewo North Upthrown (UT) ....................... 57
6.9 Contoured Depth Structure Top Ewo North UT Horizon 1 and
RMS Amplitudes for Horizon 1 Interval ....................................................... 58
6.10 Contoured Depth Structure Top Ewo North UT Horizon 2 and
RMS Amplitudes for Horizon 2 Interval ....................................................... 59
6.11 Vertical Seismic Section through Ewo North Downthrown (DT) Prospect ... 61
6.12 Contoured Depth Structure Top Ewo North DT Horizon 235 and
RMS Amplitudes for Horizon 235 to 245 Interval ........................................ 62
6.13 Contoured Depth Structure Top Ewo North DT Mid Sandstone Horizon 1
and RMS Amplitudes for Mid Sandstone to Lower Sandstone Interval........ 63
6.14 Vertical Seismic Section through Prospect Q with Contoured
Depth Map on Shallow Horizon .................................................................. 66
6.15 Vertical Seismic Section through Prospect O .............................................. 67
6.16 Contoured Depth Structure Top O Prospect Reservoir and RMS
Amplitudes for Interval below H50 Regional Marker
including Oyo Canyon Trend ...................................................................... 68
6.17 Vertical Seismic Section through Prospect P .............................................. 69
6.18 RMS Amplitudes for Broad Interval 0.4 secs below H50 Upper
Pliocene Regional Marker ........................................................................... 70
6.19 Contoured Depth Structure Top P Prospect Reservoir and RMS
Amplitudes for Bulk Interval between Top and Base Reservoir ................... 71
6.20 Vertical Seismic Section (Arbitrary Line) through Prospect P ...................... 72
6.21 Contoured Time Structure Map and RMS Amplitudes for Interval
0.075 sec below Top of P Prospect Reservoir ............................................ 72
6.22 Vertical Seismic Section through Kigbo with Depth Contoured
Maximum Amplitude of H114 ...................................................................... 74
6.23 Contoured Maximum Amplitude Maps Kigbo H114 and H114A ............... 75
6.24 Vertical Seismic Sections through Ewo Deep Lead..................................... 78


Page No.

6.25 Contoured Depth Structure Top Ewo Deep Horizon 1 and RMS
Amplitudes for Bulk Interval between Horizon 1 and 1A .............................. 79
6.26 Vertical Seismic Section through Lead A with Contoured Time Map
on Top Miocene Horizon ............................................................................. 81
6.27 Vertical Seismic Section through Lead C with Contoured Time Map
6.28 Vertical Seismic Section through Lead D with Contoured Time Map
6.29 Vertical Seismic Section through Lead R with Time Contoured
Maximum Amplitude Map at H110 .............................................................. 87
6.30 Vertical Seismic Section through Onigu with Time Contoured
Maximum Amplitude Extraction from H114 ................................................ 89
6.31 Vertical Seismic Section through Eba with Contoured Time Map ................ 91
6.32 Vertical Seismic Section through Songu with Contoured Time Map ............ 93
6.33 Vertical Seismic Section through Lead M with Time Contoured
Maximum Amplitude Extraction at Top M Channel Horizon ........................ 95
6.34 Vertical Seismic Section through Kigbo Deep Lead with
Contoured Time Map .................................................................................. 97
7.1 Location of CAMAC Blocks, Gambia .......................................................... 99
7.2 Stratigraphic Summary, Offshore Gambia .................................................. 100
7.3 CAMAC Lead Portfolio, Gambia ................................................................. 102
8.1 Location of CAMAC Blocks, Kenya ............................................................. 105
8.2 Stratigraphic Summary, Lamu Embayment Basin ....................................... 107

Appendices

I. Abbreviated form of SPE PRMS
II. Glossary

Gaffney, Cline & Associates Limited

Bentley Hall, Blacknest
Alton, Hampshire GU34 4PU, UK
Telephone: +44 (0)120 525366
Registered Number: 1122740
www.gaffney-cline.com

Registered in England, number 1122740, at the above address

CAR/cxd/EL-12-219600/0254 5
th
December, 2013

The Directors,
CAMAC Energy Inc.,
1330 Post Oak Blvd.,
Suite 2250,
Houston,
Texas,
77056,
U.S.A.

Dear Sirs,

COMPETENT PERSONS REPORT
ON CERTAIN PETROLEUM ASSETS FOR CAMAC ENERGY

INTRODUCTION

In accordance with the instruction letter of CAMAC Energy Inc. (CAMAC or the
Company), dated 26
th
February, 2013 Gaffney, Cline & Associates Ltd ("GCA") has
assessed the petroleum interests owned by CAMAC offshore Nigeria, Kenya, Gambia
and onshore Kenya (Figure 0.1). These assets include the producing Oyo field offshore
Nigeria, further discoveries and exploration prospects and leads. The Effective Date of
the evaluation is 30
th
J une, 2013. The contents of this report are limited to the acreage
operated by CAMAC.

CAMAC is currently listed on the New York Stock Exchange. GCA understands that
CAMAC intends to publish this Competent Persons Report (CPR), which has been
prepared at the request of the Company for the purpose of obtaining a secondary listing
on the J ohannesburg Stock Exchange.
.

GCA accepts responsibility for the CPR insofar as it is based on data provided by
CAMAC, which GCA has relied on the accuracy and completeness thereof, and confirms
that, to the best of its knowledge and belief having taken all reasonable care to ensure
that such is the case, the information contained in the CPR is in accordance with the facts
and contains no omission likely to affect its import.

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

2
GCA is an independent energy consultancy specialising in petroleum asset evaluation
and economic analysis. In the preparation of this report, GCA has maintained, and
continues to maintain, a strict consultant-client relationship with CAMAC. The
management and staff of GCA have been, and continue to be, independent of CAMAC in
the services they provide to the company including the provision of the opinion expressed
in this assessment. Furthermore, the management and staff of GCA have no interest in
any assets or share capital of CAMAC or in the promotion of the company.

FIGURE 0.1

LOCATION MAP FOR CAMAC AFRICAN ASSETS

0 500 1000 km
Nigeria
Kenya
Gambia
EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

3
CAMAC has made available to GCA a data set of technical information including
geological, geophysical, petrophysical and engineering data, analyses and reports,
together with financial data and other information pertaining to the fiscal and contractual
terms applicable to the assets. In carrying out this assessment GCA has relied on the
accuracy and completeness of this information.

The Resources reported herein are in accordance with the definitions of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers/World Petroleum Council/American Association of Petroleum
Geologists/Society of Petroleum Evaluation Engineers (SPE/WPC/AAPG/SPEE)
Petroleum Resources Management System document (SPE PRMS), approved in
March 2007 (see Appendix I for an abbreviated version). GCA understands that the SPE
PRMS is an acceptable standard for reporting on the J ohannesburg Stock Exchange.

Reserves are those quantities of petroleum that are anticipated to be commercially
recoverable by application of development projects to known accumulations from a given
date forward under defined conditions. Reserves must further satisfy four criteria: they
must be discovered, recoverable, commercial and remaining (as of the evaluation date)
based on the development project(s) applied. Reserves are further categorized as
Proved (1P), Proved plus Probable (2P) and Proved plus Probable plus Possible (3P) in
accordance with the level of certainty associated with the estimates and may be
sub-classified based on project maturity and/or characterized by development and
production status. All categories of Reserve volumes quoted herein have been
determined within the context of an economic limit test (pre-tax and exclusive of
accumulated depreciation amounts) assessment prior to any Net Present Value analysis.

Contingent Resources are those quantities of petroleum estimated, as of a given date, to
be potentially recoverable from known accumulations, but the applied project(s) are not
yet considered mature enough for commercial development due to one or more
contingencies. Contingent Resources may include, for example, projects for which there
are currently no evident viable markets, or where commercial recovery is dependent on
technology under development, or where evaluation of the accumulation is insufficient to
clearly assess commerciality. Contingent Resources are further categorized as 1C, 2C
and 3C in accordance with the level of certainty associated with the estimates and may
be sub-classified based on project maturity and/or characterized by their economic status.

Contingent Resource volumes are presented as unrisked. The stated 'Chance of
Development', a percentage which pertains to the probability of achieving the status of a
Reserve has not been applied to the volumes presented.

Prospective Resources are those quantities of petroleum that are estimated, as of a given
date, to be potentially recoverable from undiscovered accumulations by application of
future development projects. Prospective Resources have both an associated chance of
discovery and a chance of development. Prospective Resources are further categorized
as Low, Best and High estimates in accordance with the level of certainty associated with
recoverable estimates assuming their discovery and development and may be
sub-classified based on project maturity.

Prospective Resources include Prospects and Leads. Prospects are features that have
been sufficiently well defined, on the basis of geological and geophysical data, to the
point that they are considered drillable. Leads, on the other hand, are not sufficiently well
defined to be drillable, and need further work and/or data. In general, Leads are
significantly more risky than Prospects and therefore are not suitable for explicit
quantification.

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

4
Prospective Resource volumes are presented as unrisked. The stated 'Geological
Chance of Success' (GCoS), a percentage which pertains to the probability of achieving
the status of a Contingent Resource (where the Geological Chance of Success is unity)
has not been applied to the volumes presented. This dimension of risk assessment does
not incorporate the considerations of economic uncertainty and commerciality.

The reported hydrocarbon volumes are estimates, based on professional judgment and
are subject to future revisions, upward or downward, as a result of future operations or as
additional information becomes available.

Oil volumes appearing in this report have been quoted at stock tank conditions. Typically
these volumes have been referred to in million barrel increments (MMBbl). Natural gas
volumes have been quoted in billions of standard cubic feet (Bscf) and are volumes of
sales gas. Standard conditions are defined as 14.73 psia and 60 Fahrenheit.
Appendix II is a glossary of oilfield terms, some or all of which may be used in this report.

GCA has not undertaken a site visit of the assets. As such, GCA is not in a position to
comment on the operations or facilities in place, their appropriateness and condition and
whether they are in compliance with the regulations pertaining to such operations.
Further, GCA is not in a position to comment on any aspect of health, safety or
environment of such operation.

GCA confirms that, to the best of its knowledge, there has been no material change of
circumstances than stated herein.

This assessment has been conducted within the context of GCAs understanding of the
effects of petroleum legislation, taxation, and other regulations that currently apply to
these properties and GCAs best professional judgement, subject to the generally
recognised uncertainties associated with the interpretation of geoscience and engineering
data.

This report has been prepared for CAMAC under the scope of work and terms and
conditions agreed in the GCA proposal for services and should not be used for purposes
other than those for which it is intended. Any third party receiving a copy of this report is
similarly bound by the terms and conditions imposed on CAMAC.

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CAMAC has exploration and production interests in assets offshore Nigeria, offshore
Gambia and offshore and onshore Kenya, as listed in Table 0.1.

TABLE 0.1

CAMAC LICENCE SUMMARY

Country Licence
Working
Interest
(%)
Operator Partner
Area
(km
2
)
Gambia
A2 100 CAMAC Energy GNPC 1,294.10
A5 100 CAMAC Energy GNPC 1,387.70
Kenya
L1B 100 CAMAC Energy Ministry of Energy, Kenya 12,407.20
L16 100 CAMAC Energy Ministry of Energy, Kenya 3,644.00
Nigeria
OML 120 30 CAMAC Energy Allied Energy PLC 930.00
OML 121 30 CAMAC Energy Allied Energy PLC 877.90

The Nigerian license is governed by the Nigerian Deep Offshore & Inland Basin
Production Sharing Contract (PSC) Act 1999 Terms. The Oil Mining Lease (OML)
provides for a 12% royalty payment along with a Petroleum Profit Tax (50% of the
Chargeable profit) and an Education Tax (2% of Assessable profit), and NDDC tax (3% of
capital budget) all of which is paid to the government.

GCA also understands that there is a commercial production sharing agreement between
CAMAC and its partner Allied Energy Resources for OML 120 and 121. The summary of
the carry as understood by GCA and reflected in the net entitlement and NPV calculation
is as follows:

CAMAC pays no CAPEX and OPEX in 2013 but thereafter it pays its equity share
of all costs;
Cost oil limit is 80% net of royalties;
Cost oil split is 70% Allied and 30% CAMAC; and
Profit oil split is 49% Allied and 51% CAMAC.

Both the Gambia and Kenya acreage are held under Production Sharing Contracts with
the host governments.

The single producing asset is the Oyo Field in OML 120, offshore Nigeria, which consists
of two oil and gas pools, Oyo Central and Oyo West, in Pliocene sandstones at
approximately 1,700 m depth in 300 m water. GCA has evaluated the single producing
wells in each of the two pools (Oyo-5 in Oyo Central and Oyo-6 in Oyo West) and the
proposed further development drilling (Oyo-7 to Oyo-12), taking into account likely well
performance and reservoir variation to produce an estimate of hydrocarbon reserves
(Table 0.2).

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

6
TABLE 0.2

SUMMARY OF GROSS AND NET HYDROCARBON RESERVES
AS AT 30
th
JUNE, 2013

Category
Gross Oil
(MMBbl)
CAMAC Net Entitlement Oil
(MMBbl)
Total Proved (1P) 10.85 2.8
Proved +Probable (2P) 14.05 3.7
Proved +Probable +Possible (3P) 32.10 7.9

Note:

1. Net entitlement reflects the terms of the agreement between CAMAC and Allied based on a cost oil
+profit oil basis as described above and also reflects CAMACs additional carried interest in past
investments.

Recovery Factors

GCA has reviewed the recovery factors suggested by CAMAC and given the current
understanding of the Oyo field, GCA considers that in general the suggested ranges of
recovery factors are appropriate. However, for prospective accumulations predicted to
contain only oil phase hydrocarbons, GCA has revised CAMACs estimations. Where a
lead or prospect has a predicted mixed phase hydrocarbon (oil and gas) content, GCA
has used a range in recovery factor of 20 to 35%, with a most likely estimate of 30% for
oil. A range of 50 to 70% with a most likely estimate of 60% is used for gas phase
hydrocarbons in a mixed phase reservoir. Where a prospective accumulation has been
assessed to contain only oil phase hydrocarbons, a range in recovery factor of 25 to 45%
has been used, with a most likely estimate of 35%. Where a prospective accumulation
has been assessed to contain only gas phase hydrocarbons, a range in recovery factor of
50 to 70% has been used, with a most likely estimate of 60%. These recovery factors
have been incorporated into the Monte Carlo simulations with triangular distribution
functions.

Oyo Contingent Resources post ELT

The Oyo field reservoir is technically capable of producing oil volumes beyond the
economic limit of the field for the 1P and 2P cases outlined above. GCA has estimated
the volumes of oil that could be produced from Oyo wells -6 through -9 up to 2026; which
would require a 5 year extension to the existing licence, the Petrojarl FPSO to remain
operationally viable (it would be 40 years old in 2026). No economic limit is applied to
these Contingent Resource volumes, hence only Gross Volumes are documented as
CAMACs net entitlement volumes can only be estimated when profit oil split is known.

In addition, OML 121, offshore Nigeria, contains contingent gas resources at one
discovery in Pleistocene sandstones at Ebolibo-1, summarized in Table 0.3. In preparing
these estimates for Ebolibo, GCA has used a probabilistic methodology, both to assess
the range of in-place volumes and recoverable contingent resources.

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

7
TABLE 0.3

SUMMARY OF GROSS AND NET GAS CONTINGENT RESOURCES
AS AT 30
th
JUNE, 2013

Asset
Name
Licence
Name
Gross Contingent
Resources
(Bscf)
Working
Interest
(%)
Net Contingent Resources
(Bscf)
1C 2C 3C Mean 1C 2C 3C Mean
Oyo
OML
120
4.47 4.21 0 n/a 30
Not measurable,
no profit split
beyond ELT.
n/a
Ebolibo
OML
121
71 120 188 126 30 21 36 57 38

Notes:

1. The meaningful Contingent Resource volume reported here is the Gross 2C, or Best Estimate
value.
2. No economic limit cut off is applied for Contingent Resources.
3. It is not feasible to compute CAMACs Net Contingent Resource volume in Oyo beyond the
economic limit as it is partly dependent on profit split, which by definition is zero, i.e. no profits
beyond ELT.
4. The volumes reported here are Unrisked in the sense that Chance of Development values have
not been arithmetically applied to the designated volumes within this assessment. Chance of
Development represents an indicative estimate of the probability that the Contingent Resource will
be developed, which would warrant the reclassification of that volume as a Reserve.

Blocks OML 120 and 121, offshore Nigeria, have prospective resources of oil and gas in
10 prospects and 12 leads. Hydrocarbon shows in previous wells (Oyo-1) on the Oyo
field indicate deeper pool potential in Lower Pliocene and Miocene sandstones, which are
included in the summary of prospective resources. These sandstones of Miocene and
Pliocene age at depths ranging from 1,500 m to 3,700 m ss and include prospective
resources of both gas and oil. Water depths range from 200 m to 850 m. Prospective
Resources for OML 120 and 121 are presented in Tables 0.4 and 0.5 (Prospects) and 0.6
(Leads)

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

8
TABLE 0.4

SUMMARY OF GROSS UNRISKED PROSPECTIVE RESOURCES (PROSPECTS)
NIGERIA AS AT 30
th
JUNE, 2013

Prospect
Name
Licence
Name
Gross Unrisked Prospective Resources
GCoS
(%)
(MMBbl) (Bscf)
Low Best High Mean Low Best High Mean
P OML 121 11 41 96 48 191 427 805 470 56
G OML 120 39 64 181 118 17 24 33 24 56
Oyo T1B OML 120 1 2 4 2 1 3 7 3 64
Oyo Deep OML 120 0 1 3 2 0 1 3 1 35
Ereng OML 120 42 78 134 85 27 90 196 103 13
Ewo North UT OML 120 3 17 104 46 4 29 204 92 22
Ewo North DT OML 120 1 3 10 4 12 42 99 51 32
O OML 120 1 2 5 3 30 64 112 68 63
Kigbo OML 121 0 0 0 0 90 226 424 245 42
Q OML 120 54 96 156 102 31 86 175 97 17

Notes:

1. Prospects are features that have been sufficiently well defined, on the basis of geological and
geophysical data, to the point that they are considered viable drilling targets.
2. Gross Unrisked Prospective Resources are 100% of the volumes estimated to be recoverable from
the field.
3. The GCoS reported here represents an indicative estimate of the probability that drilling this
Prospect would result in a discovery, which would warrant the re-classification of that volume as a
Contingent Resource. The GCoS value for Contingent Resource is, by definition, unity. These
GCoS values have not been arithmetically applied to the designated volumes within this
assessment. Thus the volumes are Unrisked.
4. It is inappropriate to aggregate Prospective Resources without due consideration of the different
levels of risk associated with each Prospect/Lead and the potential dependencies between them.
Similarly, it is inappropriate to aggregate Prospective Resources with Reserves or Contingent
Resources.

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

9
TABLE 0.5

SUMMARY OF NET COMPANY UNRISKED PROSPECTIVE RESOURCES
(PROSPECTS) NIGERIA AS AT 30
th
JUNE, 2013

Prospect
Name
Licence
Name
Working
Interest
(%)
Net Unrisked Prospective Resources
GCoS
(%)
(MMBbl) (Bscf)
P
OML
121
30 3 12 29 14 57 128 241 141 56
G
OML
120
30 12 19 54 36 5 7 10 7 56
Oyo T1B
OML
121
30 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 64
Oyo Deep
OML
120
30 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 35
Ereng
OML
120
30 13 23 40 25 8 27 59 31 13
Ewo North
UT
OML
120
30 1 5 31 14 1 9 61 28 22
Ewo North
DT
OML
120
30 0 1 3 1 4 13 30 15 32
O
OML
120
30 0 1 2 1 9 19 34 20 63
Kigbo
OML
121
30 0 0 0 0 27 68 127 73 42
Q
OML
120
30 16 29 47 31 9 26 53 29 17

Notes:

Resources.
4. Net Prospective Resources in this table are Companys Working Interest fraction of the Gross
resources; they do not represent Companys actual Net Entitlement under the terms of the sharing
agreement between CAMAC and Allied.

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

10
TABLE 0.6

SUMMARY OF UNRISKED PROSPECTIVE RESOURCES (LEADS)
NIGERIA AS AT 30
th
JUNE, 2013

Lead Reservoir
Gross Unrisked
Prospective
Resources
Leads Best
Estimate
Company
Working
Interest
(%)
Net Company
Unrisked
Prospective
Resources
Leads Best
Estimate
GCoS
(%)
Oil /
Cond
(MMBbl)
Gas
(Bscf)
Oil /
Cond
(MMBbl)
Gas
(Bscf)
Kigbo Deep Top Miocene 0 254 30 0 76 10
R Plio / Pleistocene 0 60 30 0 18 34
Onigu Plio / Pleistocene 0 162 30 0 49 15
Eba Lower Pliocene 37 37 30 11 11 15
Songu Pliocene 0 40 30 0 12 42
M Plio / Pleistocene 10 26 30 3 8 11
A East Mid-Late Miocene 53 210 30 16 63 11
A West Mid-Late Miocene 19 95 30 6 28 11
C Mid-Late Miocene 29 133 30 9 40 11
D Mid-Late Miocene 62 281 30 19 84 11
Ereng B Mid-Late Miocene 170 195 30 51 58 9
Ewo Deep Mid Miocene 164 0 30 49 0 9

Notes:

1. Leads are features that are not sufficiently well defined to be drillable, and need further work and/or
data. In general, Leads are significantly more risky than Prospects and therefore volumetric
estimates for Leads are only indicative of relative size.
2. The GCoS reported here represents an indicative estimate of the probability that drilling this Lead
would result in a discovery, which would warrant the re-classification of that volume as a Contingent
Resource. The GCoS value for Contingent Resource is, by definition, unity. These GCoS values
have not been arithmetically applied to the designated volumes within this assessment. Thus the
volumes are Unrisked.
Resources.
4. Net Prospective Resources in this table are Companys Working Interest fraction of the Gross
resources; they do not represent Companys actual Net Entitlement under the terms of the sharing
agreement between CAMAC and Allied.

Blocks A2 and A5, offshore Gambia, contain play potential in Cretaceous sandstones for
oil, and two lead areas. In GCAs view, it is at this stage appropriate only to report
prospective resources for one lead, with potential at between 1,800 m and 2,200 m in
water depths of 200 m. Prospective Resources (Leads) for Gambia are presented in
Table 0.7.

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

11
TABLE 0.7

GAMBIA AS AT 30
th
JUNE, 2013

Block Lead
Gross Unrisked
Prospective
Resources - Leads
Best Estimate
Company
Working
Interest
(%)
Net Company
Unrisked
Prospective
Resources - Leads
Best Estimate
GCoS
(%)
Oil / Cond
(MMBbl)
Gas
(Bscf)
Oil /
Cond
(MMBbl)
Gas
(Bscf)
A2
West: Intra
Cenomanian.
160 0 100 160 0 5
A2 West: Albian 65 0 100 65 0 5

Notes:

Resources.

Blocks L1B and L16, onshore Kenya, and Blocks L27 and L28, offshore Kenya, contain
play potential at a number of reservoir levels for gas and oil, but the blocks require further
exploration data acquisition and analysis. No prospective resource volumes can be
quantified at this time.

The above presented Prospective Resources are GCAs estimates and have been
derived using probabilistic methods. GCoS has also been estimated and reported in the
tables above. It is inappropriate to aggregate prospective resources without due
consideration of the associated risks, and the dependencies between them. Accordingly,
prospective resources are presented on a separate, unrisked basis for each Prospect or
Lead.

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

12
DISCUSSION

1. BACKGROUND TO BLOCKS OML 120 AND 121, NIGERIA

Blocks OML 120 and 121 lie on the north-western flank of the prolific, offshore Niger
Delta. The blocks are some 60 km from the Nigerian shore line, in moderate water
depths between 100 and 900 m (Figure 1.1). The combined total area of the two blocks
is 1,807.9 km
2
.

OPL 210 was awarded to Allied Energy 1992 and subsequently converted to OMLs 120
and 121 granted with a 20 year period, beginning 27
th
February, 2001. These licences
currently operate as tax and royalty licence agreements with the state as there is no state
participation. On 22
nd
J uly, 2005 Allied executed a Production Sharing Arrangement
(PSA) with ENI/Agip, where ENI/Agip was established as Operating Contractor, with a 40
% participating interest.

In J une 2012, CAMAC Energy acquired ENI/Agips interest in OMLs 120 & 121. CAMAC
is the operator with 30%, under a technical agreement with Allied, while Allied has 70%
working interest.

Immediately to the west of OML 120 is OML 133, containing the Erha and Bosi complex
of oil and gas fields, reportedly containing 495 MMBbl and 400 MMBbl of recoverable
resource respectively. More widely, OMLs 120 and 121 lie in a regional north-west to
south-east fairway of producing fields, including the Abo Field to the north and the
Oberan and Bonga Fields to the south (Figure 1.1). All of the major hydrocarbon
discoveries in the vicinity are understood to be in sandstones of Miocene age.

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

13
FIGURE 1.1

LOCATION MAP FOR CAMAC NIGERIAN ASSETS

OML 120
OML 121
Source: Deloittes
EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

14
2. GEOLOGICAL SETTING

OML 120 and 121 are in the Diapiric Zone of the offshore Niger Delta, where structure is
dominated by gravity-driven extensional faults that sole out into deep overpressured
shales. Potential traps are created in both the fault footwalls and hanging-walls, modified
by upward diapiric movement of mobile mudstone, and with a local stratigraphic
component. The area lacks the compressional structures, which characterise the deeper
waters to the southwest in the Inner and Outer Fold and Thrust Belts. Growth of the mud
diapirs can be shown to be episodic through the Late Tertiary to Recent and exerted a
control over palaeobathymetry and consequent sand deposition.

Potential sandstone reservoirs occur in the distal portion of the Agbada
Formation/depobelt and are of Miocene to Pliocene age (Figure 2.1). They were
deposited in a deep-water, slope to basinal setting via sediment gravity flows. Sand
deposition is in part relatively unconfined, in laterally coalescing fan bodies, and partly in
confined canyon-fills. Changes in depositional styles can be related to evolution of the
basin.

The principal reservoir intervals relevant to the discoveries and prospects are as follows:

Pliocene: A major canyon-forming event took place during the early part of the
Late Pliocene that cut down in places through to the top of the Miocene. At least
three major east-west trending incised systems were created, which were the foci
of subsequent transgressive backfilling by confined, amalgamated and stacked
submarine channel systems. One example of this type of system forms the
reservoir at the Oyo field, and other prospective systems have been identified.

Upper Miocene (?Messinian): Sandstones of this age are relatively extensive and
were deposited in coalescing fan systems localised in the bathymetric
depressions between the major mud diapirs. There is some evidence of
channelized sand bodies near the top of this interval, especially in the north of
OML 120.

Upper Miocene (?Tortonian to Lower Messinian): Sand deposition was relatively
sparse in the east of the area, with only minor meandering channel systems
punctuating an otherwise mud-dominated section, but a series of slope fan and
channel sand systems can be identified in the west of the area. These are
believed to correlate with the main reservoir zone at the Erha Field, immediately to
the west of OML 120, in OML 133.

Middle Miocene (Langhian to Serravalian): Regional mapping at this level is
uncertain, but distinct channelized sandstones occur in the north and west of the
area.

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

15
FIGURE 2.1

CHRONOSTRATIGRAPHIC DIAGRAM FOR THE NORTHWEST OFFSHORE
NIGER DELTA

Seal is provided by mudstones within the fan and channel complexes and by the more
major and transgressive mudstones that cap each group of sandstones. Of great
significance to the prospectivity of Blocks OML 120 and 121 is the potential creation of
cross-fault seals, both in upthrown and downthrown fault blocks, by juxtaposition of
sandstone reservoirs against mud-rich intervals and/or the creation of mud smears within
the fault planes.
CRETACEOUS
O
L
I
G
O
C
E
N
E
CHATTIAN
AQUITANIAN
BURDIGALIAN
LANGHIAN
SERRAVALL
MESSNIAN
TORTONIAN
GELASIAN
PIACENZIAN
ZANCLEAN
Intra Late Pliocene
Top Early Pliocene
Top Miocene
Intra Late Miocene
Near Top Middle Miocene
Near Top Early Miocene
Intra Oligocene Unc.
Pre-Shales
M

I

O

C

E

N

E
P
L
I
O
C
E
N
E
My AGE
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
1
P
L
E
I
S
T
-
O
C
E
N
E
CALABRIAN
IONIAN
Marine Shales (Akata Fm.)
Channel & Fan Systems
Mud Diapirs
Modified After CAMAC
EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

16
Hydrocarbon sourcing is inferred from the Akata Formation mudstones of Eocene to
Oligocene age. These units are not penetrated in OML 120 and 121, but regional
modelling suggests a mixed charge of oil and gas as a result of mixed source rock quality
and of varying maturity. Thermal maturity is modelled to increase south-eastwards, such
that a predominantly gas charge is expected for the prospects in the east of OML 121 and
a mixed oil and gas charge is expected elsewhere. There is locally evidence from direct
hydrocarbon indicators (DHI) from the seismic data of the precise hydrocarbon phase
present, which confirms a mixed hydrocarbon charge, including amplitudes and flat spots
proven by drilling at Oyo field. Hydrocarbon sourcing has been continuous and dynamic
through the Late Tertiary to Recent, amid ongoing structuration. There is, thus, evidence
for hydrocarbon loss and seepage to shallow levels and at the sea floor.

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

17
3. EXPLORATION HISTORY AND GEOPHYSICAL DATABASE: OML 120 AND
121

A sparse 2D seismic data set (Figure 3.1) was acquired over OMLs 120 and 121, from
1991 to 1993. These data cover the majority of the licences, with a line spacing of
approximately 2.5 km, though denser in some limited areas. The quality of the 2D data is
variable and appears to suffer from some processing issues, such as multiples. Due to
the existence of multiple 3D surveys covering the licences, the 2D data were not used
during this study.

FIGURE 3.1

SEISMIC DATA COVERAGE AND EXPLORATION WELLS
OML 120 AND 121

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

18
Three surveys provide nearly complete 3D seismic coverage of OML 120 & OML 121.
From February to March in 1994 the Oyo 3D seismic survey was acquired over the
central and eastern portions of OML 120, the survey covers an area of 450 km
2
and was
acquired by Western-Geco (Figure 3.1). This survey was used for the interpretation and
delineation of the Oyo field, prior to its successful drilling in 1995 (section 4.1). This
survey is of good quality, with a consistent amplitude and frequency response throughout.
Fluid effects can be observed on the seismic data at the Oyo field and various seismic
attributes can and have been used to help define and characterise the field. Faults are
imaged well, key seismic reflectors are consistent and map able over the majority of the
survey. Mud/shale diapirs are represented with a chaotic internal seismic facies. Several
data types have been generated by CAMAC and are present within the seismic
interpretation package (IHS Kingdom). These include various time re-processed
volumes, Pre-Stack Depth Migration (PSDM) volumes and Amplitude Variation with
Offset (AVO) volumes. Limited information was supplied with the supplementary data
types and so these were not used to any great extent by GCA during its evaluation of the
Oyo field. This survey is SEG normal polarity and zero phase.

Agip acquired a 900 km
2
3D survey (Figure 3.1), to image the western areas of OML 120
and OML 121 from late 2004 to early 2005. When these data are compared to the 1994
Oyo and 2008 New seismic surveys the data appear to be poorer quality with a
generally lower resolution. The frequency content of the seismic data is lower and the
amplitude does not appear to be as consistent. This is especially an issue beneath large
faults or close to shale diapirs, where the resolution is poor to the extent where it is not
possible to map seismic reflections with confidence. However, the coverage and
resolution provided by this survey is a vast improvement over the pre-existing 2D survey
data. CAMAC has generated numerous seismic attribute volumes from the original
Kirchoff PSTM processing. GCA concentrated of the PSTM data during this study. This
survey is SEG reverse polarity and zero phase.

Oyo-1 was drilled by Statoil in 1995 finding oil and free gas within Pliocene age deep
water sands. Details of this well and further appraisal drilling on the Oyo Central and
subsequent discovery of Oyo West field are described in Section 4.1 below.

In 1996 the Ewo-1 well was drilled by Statoil (Table 3.1 and Figure 3.1) towards the
centre of OML 120, targeting Middle Miocene (Serravalian) aged reservoir sandstones.
The Ewo-1 well did not reach its intended target, due to technical issues and was plugged
and abandoned in upper Miocene sandstones, where it encountered a thin 7.5 m zone
containing oil shows. The shows were untested.

TABLE 3.1

PREVIOUS EXPLORATION WELLS

Well Licence Operator Year Result
TD
(m)
Ebolibo-1 OML 121 ENI 2007
Gas discovery in Pleistocene
A098 to A102 sandstones.
1,912
Ewo-1 OML 120 Statoil 1996
Oil show in Upper Miocene
sandstones
2,550

The Ebolibo-1 well was drilled by ENI in 2007 (Table 3.1 and Figure 3.1) in the far south
east of OML 121, to test a seismically defined, faulted 4-way dip closed structure. The
discovery was supported by strong seismic amplitudes, which shut-off down-dip in
EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

19
coincidence with structure contours. The Ebolibo-1 well encountered nearly 30 m of gas
in the Pleistocene section. The discovery was considered sub-economic and plugged
and abandoned.

In late 2008 and early 2009 Agip (through Western-Geco) acquired an 860 km
2
3D
seismic survey, covering the south west of OML 120 and the central and eastern areas of
OML 121. This New survey is similar to the 1994 Oyo survey in that it is good quality,
with a consistent amplitude and frequency response throughout. Fluid effects can be
observed on the seismic data (for example at the Ebolibo discovery and at similar
prospects in the vicinity). Faults are resolved well, seismic reflectors are consistent and
map able within the licence area. Mud/shale diapirs are represented with a chaotic
internal seismic facies. Several data types have been generated by CAMAC and are
present within the seismic interpretation package (IHS Kingdom). These include various
time re-processed volumes, PSDM volumes and numerous seismic attribute volumes.
Limited information was supplied with the supplementary data types and so these were
not used to any great extent by GCA during its evaluation of the Oyo field. This survey is
SEG reverse polarity and zero phase.

In general the seismic interpretation is reasonable and seems to follow the seismic
reflections. However, in certain areas the structure becomes difficult to interpret. In
most cases the top and the base of the reservoir has been picked on time migrated data,
in addition to some more regional surfaces, which can be difficult to pick from one survey
to another due to consistency issues. The seismic dataset would benefit from a
consistent approach to the processing, which would enable more confident
interpretations to be made away from well control than are currently possible.

CAMAC has converted their time surfaces to depth using a simple layer-cake conversion
method, which utilises velocity surveys from existing and relevant well data.

Due to the quality of the 3D seismic data it has been possible to extract various seismic
attributes from certain horizons or time envelopes through the data. CAMAC has
extensively used this approach in the interpretation of the Oyo field and the delineation of
further prospects, throughout the OML 120 and OML 121 licences. GCA has been able
re-create and in some cases refine seismic attribute extractions where necessary, in
order to help validate certain features of interest.

4. OYO FIELD

4.1 History and Introduction

The Oyo Central field was discovered by Oyo-1 in 1995. Oyo 1 penetrated the T1A
reservoir sands at 1,710 m MD and encountered 49 m (gross) of gas and 46 m (gross) of
oil in amalgamated channel and associated sandstones of Pliocene age. Two sidetrack
holes (Oyo-1 ST1

and Oyo-1 ST2) were drilled due to stuck pipe and stuck casing. The
Oyo 1 well continued through the T1A reservoir and encountered a second potential
reservoir sand, the T1B, at approximately 1,879 m where it logged approximately 5-6 m of
oil. The Oyo-1 well was tested in the oil leg of the T1A reservoir producing approximately
1,400 bopd of 35 API crude oil before sanding up. The T1B interval was not tested by
Oyo 1 or in any subsequent wells drilled into the T1B.

Subsequent drilling focussed on the Oyo West field with the drilling of Oyo-2 in 2006.
This sought to penetrate the T1A reservoir, which had been interpreted to be continuous
from Oyo Central as, although Oyo West is separated by a structural low from Oyo
Central, it is broadly correlative and has a similar seismic character as the Oyo Central
EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

20
sands. The Oyo-2 well encountered sand at approximately 1,710 m MD which logged
13 m of oil in two separate pools.

Oyo-3 wwas drilled in February, 2007 targeting the upper portion of the Oyo West
structure. Oyo-3 encountered three separate sand bodies logging a total of 6 m (net) of
gas and 26 m (net) of oil. These sand bodies are interpreted to be part of two separate
reservoir sands from that encountered in the Oyo-2 well.

Drilling returned to Oyo Central, the Oyo-4 well was drilled in December, 2007 and
encountered the T1A hydrocarbon section seen 12 years earlier by the Oyo 1 well. The
Oyo 4 well further established the lateral extent of the T1A sand and encountered the
T1B but logged only water. Oyo 4 was completed in 2009 in the T1A as a gas injection
well.

In 2009, the Oyo 5 was drilled at Oyo Central and completed as a horizontal well in the oil
leg of the T1A reservoir. Following the installation of a FPSO in 2009, Oyo 5 was brought
online at about 9,500 bopd for the first month of production and remains on production at
high gas-oil rate.

The three sand bodies at Oyo West were termed the Oyo Main reservoir by CAMAC, and
were subsequently drilled and completed by the Oyo 6 horizontal well in 2009 and
brought on production. Oyo 6 was brought online at approximately 6,300 bopd in the first
month of production and remains on production at high water cut to the present day.

4.2 Geology

The Oyo Fields (Central and West) are located in east-central Block 120, in
approximately 500 m of water. Unusually for western offshore Nigeria, they comprise
producing oil reservoirs of Pliocene (Lower or possibly earliest Upper) age, in canyon-fill
sediments of amalgamated submarine channel sandstones, with associated off channel
facies. Regional mapping of the channel sands shows a series of such fairways and the
sandstones at Oyo Central and Oyo West are broadly part of the same sedimentary
system which can be observed continuing westward to the O prospect (see section 7.2).

The fields lie in the Diapiric Zone of the offshore Niger Delta and the Oyo Central field is
underlain by a mud diapir, active episodically from the Late Miocene to the Recent.
Diapiric growth has created a simple four-way dip closure, although this is bisected by an
arcuate fault zone comprising several fault segments running through the crest of the field
(Figure 4.1). Although this zone is a conspicuous, continuous feature on the field maps, it
is in reality a zone of several antithetic faults to the major normal fault systems to east
and south. It does not radically alter the depth structure of the reservoir. It is uncertain
whether it acts to significantly compartmentalise the reservoir, but at this stage reserve
evaluation recognises the two distinct east and west fault blocks. All of the wells drilled to
date have been in the western fault compartment. The trap at Oyo West is slightly more
complex, as it lies on the southern flank of a diapiric culmination and thus there is an
element of stratigraphic closure on the north of the field at the margins of the canyon-fill
(Figure 4.2).

Seals are provided by the mudstones, which overlie the channel sandstones at Oyo
Central, but at Oyo West, in addition, there are intraformational and/or fault seals that
create at least three separate hydrocarbon pools at. Tentatively, it is the lowermost, seen
at Oyo-2, which correlates with the reservoir interval at Oyo Central. The pools at Oyo-3
and at the Oyo-6 wells are stratigraphically younger.

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

21
Hydrocarbon charge is provided by the underlying Akata Formation (Eocene). Modelling
suggests that this has generated both oil, commencing in the Miocene, but with
increasing burial and gas generation through to the present day, to create the mixed
hydrocarbon phase seen in the fields.

FIGURE 4.1

OYO CENTRAL CONTOURED DEPTH STRUCTURE MAP TOP T1A RESERVOIR

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

22
FIGURE 4.2

OYO WEST CONTOURED DEPTH STRUCTURE TOP UNIT 4 RESERVOIR AND RMS
AMPLITUDES REPRESENTING UNIT 3/4 RESERVOIR UNIT

4.3 Geophysics

The Oyo 3D Western-Geco survey covers the entirety of the Oyo field area. CAMAC has
presented the full stack dataset, along with near and far stack data volumes and other
derivative datasets. All relevant data have been used by GCA in its review of the
definition of the field. The seismic database is discussed in more detail in section 3.

The following seismic horizons have been picked over the Oyo field area:

Oyo Central
o Top T1A sandstone
o Top T1B sandstone
o Top Miocene

Oyo West
o Top Unit 4, representing top of Pliocene reservoir sand package.

0 0.5 1 km
Limit of Oyo
West Unit 3/4
hydrocarbon
pool
Trap closure probably
controlled by structural spill
point
Updip limit at edge of
canyon-fill sandstones
EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

23
Illustrative seismic panels for Oyo Central and Oyo West are presented in Figures 4.3
and 4.4.

Interpretations have been made in time, and depth surfaces have been created using the
time-depth velocity relationships from the Oyo wells, in particular VSP data from Oyo-4
for Oyo Central and for Oyo-3 for Oyo West.

FIGURE 4.3

VERTICAL SEISMIC SECTION THROUGH OYO CENTRAL FIELD WITH
CONTOURED DEPTH MAP

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

24
FIGURE 4.4

VERTICAL SEISMIC SECTION THROUGH OYO WEST FIELD WITH CONTOURED
DEPTH STRUCTURE MAP

4.4 Reservoir Geology

Details of the variation in sedimentary and reservoir geology have been reviewed in order
to better calibrate likely future well performance. In addition to the seismic data, log data
were available for the following wells:

Oyo Central:
o Oyo-1
o Oyo-1ST1
o Oyo-1ST2
o Oyo-4
o Oyo-5ADIR
o Oyo-5ADIRST

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

25
Oyo West
o Oyo-2DIR
o Oyo-3
o Oyo-3DIR
o Oyo-6DIR
o Oyo-6DIRST1
o Oyo-6DIRST2

It is clear from study of the sedimentary facies in the wells and their representation in the
seismic amplitude signatures that there is considerable variation in the likely reservoir
thickness and quality within the overall envelope of the field. On this basis, the Oyo
Central field has been divided into a series of domains of common expected reservoir
facies (Figure 4.5) and these have been used to aid assessment of hydrocarbon volumes.

Figure 4.5 summarises two general domains within the fairway of the Oyo Central Field.
The zone highlighted in green represents the axis of two submarine channel tributaries,
which are inferred to contain the optimum stacked, laterally and vertically continuous
reservoir facies. Porosity is expected to be approximately 30% and net/gross reservoir
thickness ratios are around 0.6. In yellow are areas, which are inferred to consist of
sandstones deposited adjacent to the main channels and/or minor channel systems
above the level of the main reservoir. These are inferred to be of lower quality and
possibly less well connected than the main channels. Porosity is expected to be
marginally less than the channel facies, but more significantly net/gross ratio will range
down to around 0.35. The difference can be seen in Figure 4.3, where strongly-defined
reservoir sands, with a distinct seismic horizon interpreted to represent the hydrocarbon-
water contact, pass north-eastward into an area of less distinct seismic signature.
Although reservoir quality may vary, both of these domains contribute to the producible
hydrocarbon volume of the field.

To the north and south of the main fairway (Figure 4.5) are parts of the trap, which are
less well-defined structurally, but also not interpreted to contain the same reservoir
system as the axis of the field. Sandstone units here may be too thin to provide a clear
seismic response and are inferred as representing the sedimentary section lateral to the
main channel systems. At this stage, a small in-place hydrocarbon resource is assigned
to these areas, but no wells are currently targeted and no reserves are allocated to them.

It is emphasised that the interpretations made are the best that can be derived from the
available dataset, but that additional wells will greatly improve the understanding of the
reservoir models and the calibration of the seismic response.

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

26
FIGURE 4.5

OYO CENTRAL RMS AMPLITUDES INTERVAL FROM 30 MSEC ABOVE TO 80 MSEC
BELOW TOP T1A RESERVOIR AND DEPTH STRUCTURE CONTOURS
AT TOP T1A RESERVOIR

4.5 Field Development, Cost and Schedule

4.5.1 Overview

The Oyo Central and Oyo West fields came on production in December, 2009
from the Oyo-5 and Oyo-6 wells respectively, supported by gas injection into
Oyo-4. As of 16
th
J uly, 2013, both oil wells continued to flow, well Oyo-5 at high
gas-oil ratio (>12,000 Scf/Bbl) and Oyo-6 at high water cut (85%); however on that
date no gas injection into Oyo-4 was occurring, with all produced gas temporarily
flared. These wells are connected to the Armada Perdana FPSO, which is on
contract to the end of 2013. Thereafter, GCA has been informed that the vessel is
likely to be decommissioned from the field (at no cost to CAMAC) and is likely to
be replaced with a refurbished FPSO, the Teekay Petrojarl I in mid-late 2014.
CAMAC informed GCA that the J oint Venture has signed a preliminary agreement
leading to a planned Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with experienced
FPSO owner Teekay for the provision of the Petrojarl for a 5 year minimum term
with options for up to three years extension. Once the Petrojarl is in place, two
EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

27
new producer wells (Oyo-7,-8) will be connected to the Petrojarl followed by re-
connection of gas injection well Oyo-4, with options for 4 further Oyo Central wells
(wells -9 -10, -11 and -12) in later years. Well Oyo-6 will be reconnected and
resume production in Nov 2014. Well Oyo-5 is currently expected to cease
production at the end of 2013 and its wellhead and flow-line will be recovered and
refurbished for use on the new wells. Long lead time items are already on order
and will be available from end 2013. Oyo-9 is expected to be drilled in late 2014
and, assuming wells -10 through -12 are drilled, all four would be completed and
placed on production by August, 2015 in a single campaign of well hook-up. The
addition of a chilling unit to the new FPSO is planned in order to optimize
condensate recovery from post-separator gas production.

4.5.2 Capital and Operating Costs, Development Schedule

Gross CAPEX in 2013 is estimated to be $80.8 MM including the vertical portion
of well Oyo-7 plus engineering studies for further field development including
engineering and design of three new horizontal producing wells and the
redevelopment of the field using the Petrojarl FPSO. GCA understands that
CAMAC will not participate in the costs for Oyo-7 and in exchange will retain a
revenue interest in production from this well (similar to its position in wells
-5 and -6).

CAPEX in 2014 is currently estimated to be US$194 MM including completion of
the Oyo-7 lateral and drilling/completing Oyo-8 plus subsea installation and
connection of the two new wells and Oyo-4 gas injector. There is a cost estimate
of US$29 MM to suspend the three existing wells, flush flow lines and retrieve and
refurbish them as part of the redevelopment plan. All costs associated with
demobilising the existing FPSO vessel are not for CAMACs account. It is
probable that Oyo-9 may be drilled in the latter part of 2014 or early in 2015
depending on rig mobilisation. If Oyo-9 slips into 2015, then capital costs for this
well and its completion are estimated to be US$87 MM.

In the event that wells Oyo-10, -11 and -12 (GCA 3P scenario) are sanctioned in
late 2014, planning and long lead time items will boost 2014 CAPEX to
US$210 MM and 2015 costs to US$357 MM including drilling and completing
these 3 wells plus Oyo-9.

Gross OPEX for 2013 is estimated to be US$90 MM for the full year, with
US$45 MM due post the effective date of 30
th
J une 2013. In 2014, the Petrojarl
FPSO should be under contract for 3 months, which together with abandonment
cost sinking fund means total OPEX for the will be US$34 MM. In a full year,
OPEX for the FPSO with full Teekay support plus $6 MM per year abandonment
contribution are estimated to be US$109 MM per year.

4.5.3 Development of Adjacent Discoveries

There are several small gas discoveries near to the Oyo fields, but there are no
current plans to develop any of them as there is no gas export solution. CAMAC
has identified significant exploration potential for oil prospects (Section 7 of this
report) which could be tied back to the Oyo Field FPSO in the future.

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

28
4.6 Technical Assessment

4.6.1 FPSO and Marine

The planned replacement FPSO for the longer term development of Oyo fields is
the Teekay Petrojarl I, built in 1986 to a Golar-Nor Offshore design by NKK of
J apan. It is designed to handle a wide range of different well stream compositions
and flow rates, including gas and water injection. It was originally designed for
harsh environments of the North Sea, hence it should easily be able to manage
the more benign conditions offshore Nigeria. It has successfully operated on a
wide range of UK and Norwegian oil fields at rates up to 46,000 bopd (source
Teekay).

The vessel is 215 m long, 32 m wide and has a draught of 12 m; current
deadweight is 31,473 tons and it has storage capacity for 190,000 Bbl of oil. It is
capable of handling 46,000 bopd, 47,000 bwpd and up to 52,000 bwpd for
injection based on typical light North Sea crude oils, similar to those found at Oyo.
Once a firm contract is signed, Teekay will upgrade existing gas compressor
capacity to handle 60 MMscfd of gas, dehydrate and recover NGL/condensate
from the same volumes of gas and upgrade power generation. Gas will be re-
injected for pressure maintenance and, if required for gas-lift support for high
water cut well operations. Costs for the FPSO refurbishment and upgrade will be
recovered by Teekay from the bare boat charter rate for the vessel.

CAPEX associated with installation of the replacement FPSO is paid for by the
equity partners in the field, covering installation of flow-lines, well-heads and
anchoring of the vessel.

Teekay will provide the vessel on a bare boat charter for a fee per day and also
provide operations and maintenance and support vessels for a separate fee to
provide an all-inclusive support role. The vessel is expected to be upgraded and
then arrive on location in the third quarter of 2014 with well hook-up and
commissioning in September-October 2014, except for Oyo-9 which is planned to
be on stream in August 2015. Subject to the performance of Oyo-7 and -8, three
further wells, Oyo-10, -11 and -12, may be drilled on the eastern flank of the
structure and placed on stream in late 2015.

4.6.2 Wells and Drilling

Wells Oyo- 5 and Oyo-6 (both horizontal wells) are currently on production with
Oyo-4 available for gas injection. GCA understands that Oyo-4 has a minor
hydraulics leak and hence no gas injection is currently taking place. The wellhead
will be recovered at the end of 2013 when the existing FPSO departs and all seals
will be checked and replaced prior to its re-installation in October 2104.
Development well Oyo-7 is due to be spudded as a vertical appraisal well in Q3
2013, with the objective of evaluating deeper pool potential below the main Oyo
Central pay zone and also confirming current status of gas-oil and oil-water
contacts from the main pay producing at Oyo-5. The well will likely take 50-60
days to drill, log, case and cement and then it will be suspended until mid-2014.
At that point, plans are for it to be re-entered and a horizontal well bore to be
drilled east of the current gas injection well Oyo-4 and completed as a 500 m long
cased-hole oil producer. It is GCAs understanding that this and other new
producers are expected to have a passive inflow control (intelligent) completion,
which will be designed to minimise early gas breakthrough from the gas cap and
EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

29
hence maximise oil recovery at moderate gas-oil ratios. In any event, Oyo-7 is
expecting to be operated in a more conservative pressure drawdown than Oyo-5
to help conserve reservoir energy and limit gas cusping during early well life.
Extensive well-bore planning has been undertaken, including pore-pressure
prediction and avoidance of shallow gas hazards incorporated into selection gas
casing design and planned mud weights. The main Oyo Central reservoir is
expected to be slightly pressure depleted, whilst the deeper targets beneath may
involve a modest level of overpressure hence an intermediate casing string will be
set before drilling into the deeper Miocene objective. Planned T.D. for Oyo-7 is
2,466 m MD.

Development well Oyo-8 is expected to be a similar design to Oyo-7 and will be
targeting efficiently draining the western portion of Oyo Central field. As currently
planned, Oyo-8 will be drilled as a main sand producer without penetrating the
deeper targets planned for Oyo-7. Both wells should be connected to the Petrojarl
in Q3 2014, with surplus gas re-injected into the existing Oyo-4 injection well.
Oyo-9 is currently planned for drilling in late 2014 to early 2015 and to be
connected to the field by mid-2015. It is also planned as a main sand
development well, in this case draining the crestal area of the field south and
southeast of wells -5 and -4 (see Figure 4.8). Wells Oyo-10, -11 and -12 may be
drilled on the undrilled eastern flank of the structure in 2015.

4.6.3 Subsea Architecture

All the existing wells were completed as subsea wells and individually tied back to
the FPSO by means of flexible flow-lines. The existing dynamic umbilical and
termination assembly (UTA) will be recovered and re-used for the new FPSO. All
pipeline and riser systems are rated for 5,000 psi (345 bar) internal pressure and
each production well is equipped with a 10,000 psi rated horizontal tree. Each
well is controlled via electro-hydraulic umbilical connection using a Cobra Head
Connection System. The umbilical is of continuous length and has a free hanging
design. A schematic of the field subsea layout is shown in Figure 4.6.

FIGURE 4.6

OYO FIELD: SCHEMATIC OF SUB-SEA LAYOUT

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

30
4.7 Development Uncertainties

Critical reservoir uncertainties at this time are the lateral extent of individual sand bodies
within the main Oyo Central reservoir, particularly the degree of sand continuity between
lateral producers located within the oil zone and free gas within the gas cap. Production
logging on well Oyo-5 clearly shows gas breakthrough at the heel (the part of the lateral
nearest the vertical portion of the well); what is less certain is the impact of poor cement
bonds and also the high draw-down that was employed by the previous operator at well
start-up. Reduced draw-down and potential benefits of intelligent well completions have
been factored in to the forward development plan.

There are no direct measurements of the present day gas-oil and oil-water contacts within
Oyo Central field; however should be rectified once the Oyo-7 vertical appraisal well
penetrates this interval in the next couple of months. If the original contacts remain
broadly similar to the original conditions, implying only local gas cusping around well -5,
then it is likely that lateral portion of wells -7, -8 and -9 will be placed in the middle of the
original oil column.

4.8 Safety and Environmental

GCA has been informed by CAMAC that there is government consent to continue oil
production and gas flaring for the remainder of 2013, on the understanding that gas re-
injection will be re-instated at the start of redevelopment in 2014.

Teekay is a very experienced FPSO operator who will be providing day to day operations
management of all vessels and topside operations.

The forward field development plans for Oyo and Oyo West include provision for full
treatment of all produced water clean-up to permit safe overboard disposal. There is
provision to handle process and re-inject produced gas up to a 60 MMscfd limit,
presuming that the existing gas injection well -04 can be further stimulated to handle this
volume of injected gas.

During the 2014 temporary shut-down, existing flow lines will be purged of oil and
retrieved and refurbished prior to operations to re-connect them to the Petrojarl vessel in
Q3 2014. Similarly, at the end of field life, it is likely that all flow lines and subsea trees
will be retrieved (after flushing with seawater) and all wells permanently abandoned with a
series of cement plugs.

There is an annual sinking fund contribution to cover end of field abandonment costs,
treated as operating costs for tax calculation purposes. It is possible that some of the
subsea equipment could be refurbished and re-used on any future oil discoveries
adjacent to the Oyo Fields.

4.9 Oyo Central

4.9.1 Oil in Place

Hydrocarbons initially in place have been estimated using the seismic mapping
and the lithological and fluid parameters from the wells drilled. This has allowed a
validation of the production performance and future production profiles used to
estimate hydrocarbon reserves. The in-place volumes are summarised in Table
4.1.

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

31
TABLE 4.1

HYDROCARBONS INITIALLY IN PLACE OYO CENTRAL FIELD

Domain
Hydrocarbons Initi all y in Place
(Best Estimate)
Oil
(MMBbl)
Gas
(Bscf)
Oil leg Condensate
Free gas
cap
Dissolved
gas
Principal fairway, western fault
block
55.9 0.5 41.1 35.6
Principal fairway, eastern fault
block
40.7 0.4 30.4 25.9
Additional hydrocarbons in
marginal facies, western fault
block
7.4 0.0 0.9 4.7
Additional hydrocarbons in
marginal facies, eastern fault
block
4.4 0.0 1.4 2.8
Total Western Fault Block 63.8 46.7
Total Eastern Fault Block 45.5 34.6

4.9.2 Reserves Estimation

Estimations of reserves are based on Decline Curve Analysis (DCA), after an
older dynamic reservoir simulation model had been found inadequate for
prediction purposes. Uncertainty exists with regard to connected volumes in this
reservoir, and a new well, Oyo-7, due to be drilled within the next few months,
should increase the overall understanding of the geology, reducing the
uncertainty. Until the results from the new well are available, the GCA forecasts
take into account the risk and uncertainty.

4.9.3 Proved Reserves (1P)

Proved Developed Production

The only well currently producing in the Oyo Central field is the Oyo-5 AST, which
produces from the T1A sand. The oil is light, with a 35 API gravity and a GOR of
620.4 scf/Bbl (110.5 sm
3
/sm
3
). Produced gas is re-injected into a crestal well,
Oyo-4. Both water and gas break-through occurred relatively early and remedial
actions have been taken by the current operator.

Figure 4.7 shows the historical performance for the well, along with GCAs 1P
forecast.

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

32
FIGURE 4.7

OYO NO. 5A ST PERFORMANCE AND 1P FORECAST

Current pressure decline in this reservoir is around 400 psi over 4 years (see
Figure 4.8), an indication of some pressure support by small aquifer, and gas
injection at a rate less than voidage replacement. The well has a defined decline
and was producing at an increasing water cut and GOR until J uly 2012 (month 31)
when a workover was done in order to reduce the water and gas rates. Oil
production improved for a short period and has begun to decline again. Initial
decline rate was found to be 83% with a hyperbolic decline exponent of 0.8. The
same decline trend has been assumed to continue in the 1P case, with a current
nominal decline factor (d
1
) of 4% imposed on the current production rate of 1,005
bopd (30,590 barrels of oil per month).

This well is expected to continue production until the end of 2013 when the current
FPSO vessel is expected to leave and be replaced in Q3 2014 by a different
vessel. However, due to economic cost constraints, GCA understands the Oyo-5
is currently not going to be recompleted for production in 2014 and the wellhead
will re-utilized by a new well, Oyo-7, and thus reserves for this well are only up to
the end of 2013.

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1.0
10.0
100.0
1,000.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
G
O
R

(
M
s
c
f
/
s
t
b
)
,

W
C
T

(
%
)
O
i
l

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

(
M
b
o
p
m
)
Time (Months)
OYO-5 History 1P Fit
Production Prediction, BOPM. GOR (history)
WCT (history)
2012 Workover
EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

33
FIGURE 4.8

OYO-5 FLOWING BOTTOM-HOLE PRESSURE

Proved Undeveloped Production

Three new wells have been scheduled to be drilled in Oyo Central: wells
Oyo-7, Oyo-8 and Oyo-9 (see Figure 4.9). Oyo-7 and Oyo-8 are scheduled to be
drilled in 2014, with start-up October 2014. Oyo-9 is due for start-up in August
2015. All three wells are to produce from the T1A sands, and thus a reasonable
certainty exists of finding reservoir with high confidence of commerciality.

The following assumptions were made during the performance prediction analysis:

a) production strategies would be based on improved reservoir management as
expressed and evident in the supplied business plan (rate management to
control gas cusping and water coning issues, wells with inflow control devices
(ICD), sand control, FPSO upgrade);
b) initial well capabilities would be similar to that of Oyo-5 prior to gas and water
coning issues, provided that the planned wells are horizontal, and similar to
the existing wells, as being planned;
c) initial rates and decline factors would be based on reservoir quality and
accessible volumes, at present predicted from seismic interpretation. Since a
higher degree of uncertainty in the seismic interpretation had been in the
region of the proposed Oyo-9 location, the chosen DCA parameters for this
well are more pessimistic;
d) pressure support to the new wells will improve in the absence of Oyo-5, which
produced at high GOR and WCT; and
2,000
2,200
2,400
2,600
2,800
3,000
3,200
F
l
o
w
i
n
g

B
o
t
t
o
m
-
h
o
l
e

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
)
datum depth = 1742.7 m TVDSS
EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

34
e) condensates will be recovered from all gas produced (associated gas and gas
from the gascap) in the order of 750 stb/d initially, declining to 500 stb/d after
two years. This assumption is based on assuming an initial condensate-gas
ratio of 11-16 stb/MMscf, levelling off as the injected lean gas is recycled.

Actual reserve volumes were determined by economic limit testing. For the
Proved Undeveloped projected production profiles, GCA has used initial rates and
initial nominal decline factors of 7,000 bopd and 10% (Oyo-7), 7,500 bopd and 8%
(Oyo-8), and 4,500 bopd with 20% (Oyo-9). Hyperbolic exponents were 0.8 in all
cases. The initial nominal decline rate for well Oyo-5, as fitted to historical data, is
22% in the proved case, and the lower decline rate assumptions for the new wells
are based on the assumption of improved reservoir management.

FIGURE 4.9

LOCATION OF OYO WELL NOS. 7, 8 AND 9

4.9.4 Proved plus Probable (2P)

The Proved plus Probable reserve performance profiles were forecast with
improved decline characteristics, as compared to those for PUD reserves. The
initial rates for Oyo-7, -8 and -9 were set to 7,500, 8,000 and 5,000 bopd
EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

35
respectively, with initial nominal decline rates for Oyo-5, and Oyo-7 through to
Oyo-9 of 2.8%, 8%, 7% and 18%, respectively. Again, although the initial nominal
decline rate for well Oyo-5, as fitted to historical data, had been much higher (18%
in 2P case), the lower decline rate assumptions for the new wells are based on the
lower initial production rates. Hyperbolic exponents of 0.8 were used for all wells.
Oyo-5 contribution beyond 2013 was zero, due to re-utilization of its wellhead.

Again, DCA parameters were selected by considering predicted accessible
volumes in place combined with Oyo-5s historical performance. Actual reserve
volumes were determined by economic limit testing and a more optimistic field
shut-down period of 8 months instead of 9 months...

4.9.5 Proved plus Probable plus Possible (3P)

The Proved plus Probable plus Possible reserves included the planned new wells
in Oyo Central, east from the main fault, Oyo-10, Oyo-11 and Oyo-12. All three
wells are scheduled for start-up in August 2015. Although no exploration wells
had penetrated the section east of the fault, a geologically reasonable assumption
would be that the fault is non-sealing, based on the depositional model and the
low fault displacement, as interpreted from seismic data, and reservoir geology.
Well paths for the three additional eastern wells had not been provided, but it is
assumed that these would be horizontal wells, similar to Oyo-5.

The performance forecast for these wells were based on (a) the geoscience
interpretation of the rock quality and net reservoir thickness in the present
proposed well locations (Section 4.4), and (b) the performance history of Oyo-5.
The accessible volumes for these three wells were predicted as being lower than
that of Oyo-5 due to lower connected reservoir quality, and subsequently, lower
initial rates with steeper decline rates were used in estimating the individual
recoveries. It has further been assumed that reasonable care would be exercised
by the operator to manage the reservoir, in which case lower initial rates could
result in lower declines rates. The DCA parameters per well for the 3P case are
shown in Table 4.2. Oyo-5 contribution beyond 2013 was zero, due to
re-utilization of its wellhead.

TABLE 4.2

DCA PARAMETERS PER WELL FOR THE 3P CASE

Well
Initial rate
(Q
i
)
(bopd)
d
i
b
Oyo-5 1,005 0.02 0.85
Oyo-7 8,000 0.08 0.85
Oyo-8 8,500 0.06 0.85
Oyo-9 6,500 0.10 0.85
Oyo-10 7,000 0.15 0.80
Oyo-11 7,000 0.15 0.80
Oyo-12 6,000 0.15 0.80

Figure 4.10 shows the relation of the forecasted production profiles in relation to
the Oyo No. 5 A ST well.

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

36
FIGURE 4.10

PERFORMANCE COMPARISON FOR 1P, 2P, AND 3P

4.10 Oyo West Field

4.10.1 Oil in Place

Oyo West is a complex composite trap comprising at least three individual
hydrocarbon pools. The main channel sandstone body appears to be that
targeted by the Oyo-6 wells. A best estimate of in-place hydrocarbon volumes
has been made for this hydrocarbon pool alone, based on the extent of the
seismic amplitudes (Figure 4.2) that define the channel margin and the proven oil-
water and gas-oil contacts. Reservoir and fluid properties are as defined by the
wells. This volume does not include the additional volumes at shallower levels or
in the small additional deeper pool proven at Oyo-2 (see Table 4.3).

TABLE 4.3

HYDROCARBONS INITIALLY IN PLACE OYO WEST FIELD

Domain
Hydrocarbons Initi all y in Place (Best Estimate)
Oil
(MMBbl)
Gas
(Bscf)
Oil Leg Condensate Free Gas Cap Dissolved Gas
Principal channel fairway 33.5 0.2 12.5 21.3
Total 33.7 33.8

10.0
100.0
1000.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
O
i
l

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

(
B
O
P
M
)
Time (Months)
OYO-5 History 1P 2P 3P
EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

37
4.10.2 Proved Reserves (1P)

Proved Developed Producing

The only well producing in the Oyo West Field is the Oyo-6 well, which produces
from what is referred to as the Main sand. The well produces 27 API oil with a
GOR of around 370 to 400 scf/stb (66 to 71 sm
3
/sm
3
).

The following Figure 4.11 shows the historical flowing bottom-hole pressure and
production performance, and Figure 4.12 the DCA forecast for the well. The
bottom hole pressure shows good reservoir pressure maintenance for the period
2011 to mid-2012, with a total drop of 600 psi during the 4 years of production. A
10-fold increase in produced GOR is observed and WCT at the end of 2012 was
above 80%.

FIGURE 4.11

OYO NO. 6 HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE

1,500
1,700
1,900
2,100
2,300
2,500
2,700
2,900
F
L
o
w
i
n
g

B
o
t
t
o
m
h
o
l
e

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
)
datum depth = 1616 m TVDSS
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
10
100
1000
W
C
T

(
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
)

a
n
d

G
O
R

(
M
s
c
f
/
s
t
b
)
O
i
l

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

(
B
O
P
M
)
BOPM GOR WCT
EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

38
FIGURE 4.12

1P FORECAST FOR OYO-6

The well has a defined decline until mid-2011 when production plateaued until
mid-2012 at which time the decline resumed. No reason for this plateau has been
provided. . Initial decline rate was found to be 86% with a hyperbolic decline
exponent of 0.8. The same decline trend has been assumed to continue, with the
nominal decline factor at end J un 2013 (d
i
) of 5%.

Actual reserves are based on the results of an economic limit test, which is
discussed later in the report.

Proved Undeveloped

There are no Proved Undeveloped wells scheduled for the Oyo West Field.

4.10.3 Proved plus Probable (2P)

There are no further wells scheduled for the Oyo West Field.. However, a more
optimistic prediction of probable production performance of Oyo-6 was based on a
nominal decline factor of 3% at the end of J un 2013, with a hyperbolic decline
exponent of 0.8. This is based on the performance history in 2012.

10.0
100.0
1000.0
O
i
l

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

(
B
O
P
M
)
BOPM DCA Predicted 2014 onwards
EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

39
4.10.4 Proved plus Probable plus Possible (3P)

There are no further wells scheduled for the Oyo West Field. However a more
optimistic forecast for Oyo-6 using a decline factor of2.5%, with the same
hyperbolic decline exponent as above. The low decline factors in this field are
based on the PVT, indicating slightly higher viscosity oil, which generally delivers
lower rates initially, but perform at a lower decline in the long term.

4.11 Contingent Resources

No Contingent Resources are assigned in the Oyo Fields.

4.12 Prospective Resources Deep Pool Potential at Oyo Field

As part of the further development of Oyo Field, well Oyo-7 is planned to drill below the
producing T1A reservoir to further evaluate oil shows in underlying sands.

4.12.1 T1B Formation

Well Oyo-1ST2 encountered a gross 6 m column of oil shows in argillaceous
sandstones at the top of the T1B sandstone (at 1,849m) with an ODT at
approximately 1,855 m. There is a thin shale barrier above the T1B sands at this
location that separates it from overlying water bearing sands. Results at the other
Oyo-1 borehole/sidetracks and the presence of water bearing sands in Oyo-4,
where the top of the T1B sandstone is at 1,859 m, suggest 1,855 m is the possible
oil water contact. No testing of this interval has been conducted (oil was
recovered in an RFT) and the reservoir quality of the drilled hydrocarbon column is
poor, but there may be potential for sandstones of better porosity to occur higher
on the structure.

Although the seismic data quality is poor, mapping of the top T1B sandstone
indicates a simple dip closure formed by rollover into growth faults to the south
and east of the field, with spill very likely controlled by cross fault leakage,
although precise interpretations around the fault are unclear at this stage. The
antithetic fault splay, which may influence the main T1A reservoir, does not greatly
affect the T1B level, although there is a small part of the closure mapped in the
eastern fault block.

The consistency of the structural mapping with the OWC defined in the wells
allows a low case (P90) to be defined in the western fault block. The most likely
case (P50) includes additional pay in the eastern fault block, where there is
uncertainty over the interpretation and mapping. A high case (P10) is created by
adding an arbitrary additional 10% to the gross rock volume, reflecting the level of
uncertainty in the mapping.

The sedimentary setting is inferred as being similar to the T1A sandstones, with
reservoirs occurring in submarine channels and associated interchannel fan
facies. Some variability in quality and lateral continuity is expected within the
prospect. Along with the mapping and precise trap size, risk attached to the
presence of top sealing shale is the main uncertainty and is the reason for
assigning these resources in the prospective category. There is no particular
support for the presence of gas within the structure, but there is the possibility of a
small gas cap, as in the overlying T1A reservoir. This uncertainty has been
reflected in the volume analysis.
EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

40
Current mapping suggests that the proposed Oyo-7 vertical pilot well will intersect
the T1B sandstone at a slightly higher level than at Oyo-4 and will further confirm
the position of the proposed OWC.

Probabilistically derived oil and gas in-place volumes for Oyo T1B reservoir are
presented in Table 4.4, with estimated GCoS. Prospective Resources are
presented in Tables 0.4 and 0.5.

TABLE 4.4

SUMMARY OF PROSPECTIVE OIL AND GAS IN PLACE VOLUMES OYO T1B

Prospect
Name
Licence
Name
Gross Unrisked In Place Volumes
GCoS
(%)
(MMBbl) (Bscf)
Oyo T1B
OML
120
5 8 12 8 1 5 12 6 64

4.12.2 Upper Miocene

Beneath the producing Pliocene reservoirs at Oyo Field there is additional
untested potential within the Miocene section, interpreted to be of Tortonian to
Messinian age. Well Oyo-1

ST2 encountered oil shows from a sand at 2,305 m,
but unfortunately no logging or further evaluation of this zone was possible.
However, ditch cuttings indicate a gross 11 m of oil-bearing sand and structure
mapping suggests that this lies near the base of a dip-closed trap to the south of
the well (Figure 4.13). In addition there is a similar culmination beneath the north
of the field. The nature of the synclinal area separating the northern and southern
culminations is unclear, but this may represent a later channel incision, filled with
mudstone.

A low volumetric case (P90) is defined solely in the southern culmination by the
results of the well, allowing for an 11 m hydrocarbon column below that structural
level.

The best case (P50) includes both the southern and northern culminations as
potentially containing hydrocarbons with a contact defined that links them as one
continuous hydrocarbon pool. This has a contact approximately 25 m below the
level of the Oyo-1 ST2 well.

The detail of the seismic correlation within the overall anticline is obscure so the
precise maximum potential size of the prospect is unclear, but a high case (P10)
can be defined within the limits of the interpretation and mapping with a closure
approximately 35 m below the level of the Oyo-1 ST2 well.

The mapping of the northern culmination, and nature and extent of the syncline/
channel incision that separates the northern and southern culminations are the
key risks attached to extending this prospect beyond the southern culmination and
the hydrocarbon column inferred at Oyo-1 ST2.

The potential interval is not logged in the area of the field. Reservoir parameters
have been used from Oyo-1 ST2 in the Upper Miocene immediately overlying the
target zone. The prospect is modelled as containing mainly oil, but the possibility
EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

41
is included of a gas cap above the level of the oil column indicated at Oyo-1 ST2.
Fluid parameters are as at the Oyo Field, adjusted as appropriate for depth.

FIGURE 4.13

OYO CENTRAL DEPTH STRUCTURE TOP OYO MIOCENE RESERVOIR AND RMS
AMPLITUDES (FAR STACK ONLY) FOR INTERVAL 50 MSEC BELOW

Probabilistically derived oil and gas in-place volumes for Oyo Deep, Upper
Miocene reservoir are presented in Table 4.5, with estimated GCoS. Prospective
Resources are presented in Tables 0.4 and 0.5.

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

42
TABLE 4.5

SUMMARY OF PROSPECTIVE OIL AND GAS IN PLACE VOLUMES OYO DEEP

Prospect
Name
Licence
Name
GCoS
(%)
(MMBbl) (Bscf)
Oyo Deep
OML
120
1 5 11 6 0 1 5 2 35

4.12.3 Other Potential

Correlation of the reservoirs from Oyo West to Oyo Central suggest that there may
be additional potential for reservoir development to the south of the Oyo Central
wells, at a younger stratigraphic level than the main Oyo Central reservoirs (Figure
4.14). This prospective interval could have either a structural and/or stratigraphic
closure but has not been penetrated by any of the previous wells and this concept
has not been fully evaluated at this time. No prospective volumes have been
assigned at this time, but further insight into this seismic package could be
obtained once Oyo-8 is drilled in 2014.

FIGURE 4.14

RMS AMPLITUDES FOR UNIT 3/4 AT OYO WEST EXTRAPOLATED INTO OYO
CENTRAL AREA, SUPERIMPOSED ON DEPTH STRUCTURE TOP T1A RESERVOIR

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

43
5. OTHER DISCOVERIES

5.1 Ebolibo-1

The Ebolibo-1 well was drilled in 2007, in the far south east of OML 121 (Figure 3.1).
Ebolibo was a seismically defined, faulted 4-way dip closed structure associated with a
large down to the west normal fault. The discovery is supported by amplitudes, which
shut-off down-dip approximately in coincidence with structure contours (Figure 5.1). The
Ebolibo-1 well encountered nearly 30 m of gas in the Pleistocene section, at the A098
and A102 intervals. However the discovery was considered sub-economic and the well
was plugged and abandoned. GCA understands that CAMAC currently has no plans to
develop the discovery. GCA considers the resources encountered at the Ebolibo
discovery as Contingent Resources.

In order to derive a range of resource volumes, GCA has reviewed the mapping
conducted by CAMAC over the discovery. It appears that two gas bearing reservoir
intervals were mapped and encountered by the well; both are Pleistocene in age (A098
and A102). Both of the mapped intervals have strong amplitude responses associated
with them, which are assumed to be associated with a (soft) gas seismic response. The
areal extent of the amplitude response at the upper (A098) reservoir interval is 18.4 km
2

within OML 121 and from examination of log data appears to have a pay thickness of
approximately 9 m. The areal extent of the amplitude response at the lower (A102)
reservoir interval is 3.3 km
2
and log data indicates a hydrocarbon pay zone of 26 m. The
combined pay zone thickness of the upper and lower reservoir intervals is 35 m, which
approximately agrees with published reports.

A low (P90) case for calculating GRV has been defined using CAMACs interpreted
surfaces and GCAs polygon outlines, incorporating both reservoir intervals. The GRV
used in the volumetric estimations at the low case was derived by using a fraction of the
best case GRV, which represents a reasonable uncertainty in the mapping, depth
conversion and percentage of hydrocarbon fill in the structure.

A best (P50) case for calculating GRV has been defined using CAMACs interpreted
used in the volumetric estimations at the best case was derived by using a pay zone
thickness of 35 m distributed between the two reservoir intervals (as described above).

A high (P10) case for calculating GRV has been defined using CAMACs interpreted
used in the volumetric estimations at the high case was derived by using a multiplier of
the best case GRV, which represents a reasonable uncertainty in the mapping, depth

Oil and gas in place volumes are presented in Table 5.1 and gas Contingent Resources
are presented in Table 5.2.

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

44
TABLE 5.1

SUMMARY OF CONTINGENT OIL AND GAS IN PLACE VOLUMES
EBOLIBO

Prospect
Name
Licence
Name
(MMBbl) (Bscf)
Ebolibo OML 121 0 0 0 0 122 202 309 210

TABLE 5.2

SUMMARY OF GROSS AND NET GAS CONTINGENT RESOURCES
EBOLIBO AS AT 30
th
JUNE, 2013

Asset
Name
Licence
Name
Gross Contingent
Resources (Bscf)
Working
Interest
(%)
Net Contingent Resources
(Bscf)
1C 2C 3C Mean 1C 2C 3C Mean
Ebolibo OML 121 71 120 188 126 30 21 36 57 38

Notes:

1. The meaningful Contingent Resource volume reported here is the 2C, or Best Estimate value.
2. No economic limit cut off is applied for Contingent Resources.
3. The volumes reported here are Unrisked in the sense that Chance of Development values have
not been arithmetically applied to the designated volumes within this assessment. Chance of
Development represents an indicative estimate of the probability that the Contingent Resource will
be developed, which would warrant the reclassification of that volume as a Reserve.
4. Working interest shown assumes CAMAC would opt to invest in any future investment under the
Production Sharing Contract with Allied.

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

45
FIGURE 5.1

VERTICAL SEISMIC SECTION THROUGH EBOLIBO DISCOVERY
WITH DEPTH CONTOURED MAXIMUM AMPLITUDE MAP ON A098
PLEISTOCENE HORIZON

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

46
6. PROSPECTIVE RESOURCES OML 120 and 121

CAMAC has conducted a work programme of interpretation and mapping to define
potential prospects and leads in OML 120 and 121 (Figure 6.1). GCA has reviewed all of
the potential drilling targets and provides an independent assessment of the geological
description and definition of all prospects and leads, the prospective resources and the
geological risk.

FIGURE 6.1

CAMAC PROSPECT AND LEAD PORTFOLIO OML 120 AND 121

OML boundary
Ewo 3D seismic survey
Oyo 3D seismic survey
New OML 120-121 seismic
survey
Field/Discovery
Western OML 120: Miocene Prospects (oil & gas)
Western OML 120 & 121: Pliocene Prospects (oil & gas)
Eastern OML 121: Pliocene to Pleistocene Prospects (gas)
OML 120: Miocene Leads (oil & gas)
Eastern OML 121: Pliocene to Pleistocene Leads (oil & gas)
OML 121: Miocene Lead (gas)
Solid Outline =Prospect
Dashed Outline =Lead
Erha Field
(Exxon)
Ewo North
(UT & DT)
Prospects
Ewo
Deep
Prospect O
Prospect G
A (East
& West)
D
Prospect Q
Oyo West
Oyo T1B & Oyo Deep
C
Ereng
Prospect
Prospect P
Songu
R
M
Kigbo Prospect
Eba
Onigu
Kigbo
Deep
Ereng B
10 km
Oyo Field
(CAMAC)
Ebolibo
Discovery
OML 120
OML 121
EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

47
Prospective Resources are assigned to ten prospects (Tables 6.1 and 6.2) distributed
over OML 120 and 121 in a series of combination structural-stratigraphic traps in
reservoirs of Miocene to Pliocene age.

TABLE 6.1

SUMMARY OF GROSS UNRISKED PROSPECTIVE RESOURCES (PROSPECTS)
NIGERIA AS AT 30
th
JUNE, 2013

Prospect
Name
Licence
Name
Gross Unrisked Prospective Resources
GCoS
(%)
(MMBbl) (Bscf)
P OML 121 11 41 96 48 191 427 805 470 56
G OML 120 39 64 181 118 17 24 33 24 56
Oyo T1B OML 121 1 2 4 2 1 3 7 3 64
Oyo Deep OML 120 0 1 3 2 0 1 3 1 35
Oyo Ereng OML 120 42 78 134 85 27 90 196 103 13
Ewo North UT OML 120 3 17 104 46 4 29 204 92 22
Ewo North DT OML 120 1 3 10 4 12 42 99 51 32
O OML 120 1 2 5 3 30 64 112 68 63
Kigbo OML 121 0 0 0 0 90 226 424 245 42
Q OML 120 54 96 156 102 31 86 175 97 17

Notes:

2. Gross Unrisked Prospective Resources are 100% of the volumes estimated to be recoverable from
the field.
Resources.

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

48
TABLE 6.2

SUMMARY OF NET COMPANY UNRISKED PROSPECTIVE RESOURCES
(PROSPECTS) NIGERIA AS AT 30
th
JUNE, 2013

Prospect
Name
Licence
Name
Working
Interest
(%)
Net Unrisked Prospective Resources
GCoS
(%)
(MMBbl) (Bscf)
P OML 121 30 3 12 29 14 57 128 241 141 56
G OML 120 30 12 19 54 36 5 7 10 7 56
Oyo T1B OML 120 30 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 64
Oyo Deep OML 120 30 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 35
Oyo Ereng OML 120 30 13 23 40 25 8 27 59 31 13
Ewo North UT OML 120 30 1 5 31 14 1 9 61 28 22
Ewo North DT OML 120 30 0 1 3 1 4 13 30 15 32
O OML 120 30 0 1 2 1 9 19 34 20 63
Kigbo OML 121 30 0 0 0 0 27 68 127 73 42
Q OML 120 30 16 29 47 31 9 26 53 29 17

Notes:

Resources.
4. Working interest shown assumes CAMAC opts to invest in each asset at its full working interest
within the guidelines of the Production Sharing Contract with Allied.

Prospects are defined by structural mapping from three 3-D seismic surveys: Ewo 3-D,
acquired 1994, Oyo 3-D, acquired 1994, New 120,121 3-D survey, acquired 2008-2009
(Section 3). All data have been reprocessed and various seismic attributes and derivative
data volumes have been used to infer the presence of potential reservoirs and of direct
indications of the presence of hydrocarbons.

The deeper pool potential beneath the T1A reservoir in Oyo Central Field, the T1B and
Oyo Deep prospects are discussed in detail in section 4.12 of this report.

Other volumetric parameters are estimated with respect to regional analogues and the
analyses conducted on other wells on OML 120 and 121, (wells Oyo-1 to Oyo -6, Ewo-1
and Ebolibo-1). In particular, a regional model of the variation of key parameters with
depth has been derived including porosity, reservoir pressure and temperature; hence the
Formation Volume Factor (Bo) and Gas Expansion Factor (Bg). These allow estimates to
be made of appropriate values to be made for each prospect.

A Geological Chance of Success (GCoS) for each prospect or lead has been estimated
using GCAs own internal system. This addresses four individual component probabilities
EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

49
for the presence of reservoir, source, trap/seal and petroleum system timing to derive a
net probability for each prospect or lead. These are reported in Tables 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3
summarising prospective resources. Note that all prospective resource volumes are
reported on an unrisked basis. Prospects and Leads have been divided by GCA into
groups as follows:

Section 6.1 - OML 120: Miocene prospects (oil and gas)
o Prospect G
o Prospect Ereng
o Prospect Ewo North UT
o Prospect Ewo North DT
o Prospect Q

Section 6.2 - OML 120 and 121: Pliocene prospects (oil and gas)
o Prospect O
o Prospect P

Section 6.3 - Eastern OML 121: Pliocene to Pleistocene Prospects (gas)
o Prospect Kigbo

Section 6.4 - OML 120: Miocene Leads (oil and gas)
o Ereng B
o Ewo Deep
o Lead A
o Lead C
o Lead D

Section 6.5 - Eastern OML 121: Pliocene to Pleistocene Leads (gas)
o Lead R
o Onigu
o Eba
o Songu
o Lead M

Section 6.6 OML 121: Miocene Leads
o Kigbo Deep

Assessment of the hydrocarbon phase in each prospect takes into account the regional
models of hydrocarbon generation described above and also the local seismic signature,
in particular the recognition of anomalously high amplitudes and polarity changes,
inferred as indicating gas presence, stepped decline in amplitudes with depth that imply
the presence of multiphase hydrocarbon fluid presence, and cross-cutting or flat events,
indicating possible fluid (gas-water, or gas-oil) contacts. It is noted that the character of
some of the deeper prospects is ambiguous and hydrocarbon charge may be of gas,
through migration from thermally mature kitchen areas. Alternatively, a liquid phase may
be encountered where elevated formation pressures may maintain the formation above
the fluid bubble point, and/or seal competence may not be sufficient to retain a gas
column. This uncertainty is reflected in the volumetric analysis conducted by GCA.

Details of individual targets are discussed below, following the groups described above.

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

50
6.1 Western OML 120 Miocene Prospects (Oil and Gas)

6.1.1 Prospect G

Prospect G is located at the western margin of OML 120. It is 10 km east of the
Erha field, in OML 135, a giant field reportedly containing a recoverable resource
of 500 MMBbl and 3.2 Tcf gas. Prospect G lies in approximately 800 m of water.
The prospect extends beyond the OML 120 Block boundary to the west, but all
comments and volumes calculated herein pertain only to that area of the prospect
that lies within OML 120. Reservoirs are inferred to be of Upper Miocene
(Tortonian to Messinian) age.

It is GCAs understanding that Prospect G is likely to be included in the drilling
schedule in 2014 alongside the development drilling and completion of Oyo
Central field wells. No formal well proposal has yet been presented to GCA.

Controls on sand distribution are complex and sandstone bodies consist of a
stacked series of submarine fans and channels, localised partly by the sea floor
topography created by early shale diapir movement, as have been inferred from
published data on the Erha Field. Regional mapping of likely sand distribution
suggests that Prospect G lies on a southern branch from the major sand feeder
system that fed the Erha area.

The trap is structural and is created by rollover on the crest of a shale diapir in the
hangingwall of an array of listric faults which sole out into the heart of the shale
ridge. Trap formation was mainly in the Pliocene to Pleistocene, with some minor
movement of the larger faults, bounding the fault array, continuing until the
present day. Regional seismic interpretation suggests that the reservoirs lie
above and below the H300 marker, within the Middle Miocene. There is a strong
amplitude signature at the level of the Main Sand, but it is noted that this occupies
different structural levels in different fault blocks, suggesting structural
compartmentalisation of the prospect (Figure 6.2).

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

51
FIGURE 6.2

VERTICAL SEISMIC SECTION THROUGH PROSPECT G
WITH DEPTH CONTOURED MAXIMUM AMPLITUDE MAP

The prospect contains the possibility of stacked reservoir units, and there is
evidence of a common hydrocarbon contact in the fault blocks that comprise the
east of the prospect, but of individual stacked hydrocarbon pools elsewhere. For
the purposes of calculating the gross rock volume within OML 120, GCA has
generated a Petrel Model which was based on the stratigraphy encountered at the
Erha-1 well (Figure 6.3). Within the model, one grid was generated to represent
each of the Low, Best and High cases. Volumes within the model are bound to
the west by the OML 120 block boundary (it is recognised that the western edge of
Ewo Horizon
N S
0 0.75 1.5 km
0 1 km
Ewo Horizon
Lower
Northern Fault
Segment
Southern Fault
Segment
S
N
Western Limit
of OML -120
EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

52
the trap may extend into a neighbouring licence). To the East the model is limited
by a verticalised fault, which is considered to be associated with the main south
west to north east trending listric fault (Figure 6.4). The model was split into two
segments to account for the apparent difference in fluid contacts observed on
amplitude extractions from the seismic cube.

FIGURE 6.3

STRATIGRAPHIC SECTION APPLIED TO PROSPECT G PETREL MODEL

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

53
The low case (P90) ascribes potential to the top three sands (1-3) in the Petrel
model (Figures 6.3 and 6.4), which represents 77 m of gross sand interval.
Structural contours show a potential spill point for the structure to the South East
(Figure 6.2). The OWC for the low case was set 10 m below the structural spill in
the southern segment and 70 m below the structural spill point in the northern fault
segment. This corresponds to strong amplitude shut-offs on amplitude extraction
data. The 3D seismic volume covering Prospect G shows the brightest
amplitudes to be present within this package. The amplitude response observed
at the top of the main sand package may be indicative of gas phase
hydrocarbons. This package on the seismic data corresponds to sands 2 and 3
within the Petrel model. To accommodate the likelihood of gas phase
hydrocarbons being present at these intervals at Prospect G the Petrel model
includes mixed phase hydrocarbons at sands 2 and 3, through the use of GOC
and OWCs. Sand 1 is considered as purely oil phase hydrocarbons.

FIGURE 6.4

3D VIEW TO WEST OF PROSPECT G PETREL MODEL
.

The best case (P50) ascribes potential to the top four sands (1-4) in the Petrel
model (Figures 6.3 and 6.4), which represents 91 m of gross sand interval.
Structural contours show a potential spill point for the structure to the South East
(Figure 6.4). The fluid contacts for the best case were set to the same as those
used in the low case (above). Sands 1 and 4 are considered as oil phase only
and sands 2 and 3 are considered as mixed phase.

The high case (P10) ascribes potential to six sands (1-6) in the Petrel model
(Figures 6.3 and 6.4), which represents 158 m of gross sand interval. Structural
contours show a potential spill point for the structure to the South East (Figure
6.4). The OWC for the high case was set 70 m below the structural spill in the
EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

54
southern segment and 190 m below the structural spill point in the northern fault
segment. This corresponds to weak amplitude shut-offs on amplitude extraction
data. Sands 1 and 4-6 are considered as oil phase only and sands 2 and 3 are
considered as mixed phase.

Reservoir properties have been defined with respect to the data available on the
Oyo and Erha fields, adjusted where necessary for depth. Oil and gas properties
from regional data, along with estimates of the ambient reservoir conditions of
temperature and pressure are used to derive the required Bo and Bg values.

Liquid hydrocarbons are expected to be oil. An allowance has been included for
condensate content within the gas volume.

In Place Volumetric estimates are presented in Table 6.3.

TABLE 6.3

SUMMARY OF PROSPECTIVE OIL AND GAS IN PLACE VOLUMES
PROSPECT G

Prospect
Name
Licence
Name
GCoS
(%)
(MMBbl) (Bscf)
G OML 120 159 225 660 425 29 40 53 41 56

6.1.2 Prospect Ereng

Prospect Ereng straddles the boundary between OML 120 and 121. It is a deep
and complex trap in sandstones interpreted of Middle Miocene (Serravalian) to
possible Lower Miocene age. It lies in approximately 690 m water depth.

There are two sandstone intervals which are included in this analysis; Ereng,
within the interval designated as the H470-H500 sequence and Ereng B, within
that designated the H538-H562 sequence. Both show a strong amplitude
signature, interpreted as representing the presence of multi-storey, stacked
submarine channel sand bodies, but potential trap geometries are clearer in the
Ereng interval. At this stage, although indications exist of individual channel
cutoffs, possibly controlling seismic amplitude, and hence sealing geometry and
hydrocarbon fill, no clear trap can be defined in the Ereng B interval and it is
designated as a lead.

The Ereng trap is created within an overall structural low within an incised
amalgamated submarine channel body oriented approximately E-W. A transverse
section clearly shows the overall channel geometry (Figure 6.5). Critical to trap
formation are the lateral and bottom seals against sediments equivalent to the
channel sandstones and into which the channel has incised.

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

55
FIGURE 6.5

VERTICAL SEISMIC SECTION (NNW-SSE) THROUGH ERENG A PROSPECT AND
ERENG B LEAD

Northwards the closure is created by the channel margin and southwards onto
structural highs created by two overlapping, en echelon mud diapir trends.
Structural growth is partly syn-depositional to the southeast, against which the
channel thins, and partly post-depositional to the southwest where a major faulted
mud ridge appears to truncate the reservoir sands (Figure 6.6).

FIGURE 6.6

VERTICAL SEISMIC SECTION (ENE-WSW) THROUGH ERENG A PROSPECT AND
ERENG B LEAD

The low volume case (P90) for the Ereng prospect is defined by the lowest
position of the incised channel margin on the northern flank of the channel which
EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

56
creates the most robust view of the stratigraphic component of the trap. This
would permit a closing contour at approximately 3,300 m on the top surface of the
reservoir.

The best case (P50) volume is taken at the point above which the highest
amplitudes occur (Figure 6.7), tentatively equated to the best quality sandstones
near the top of the reservoir zone with a possibility of hydrocarbon fill. It would
indicate the base of the trap at approximately 3,420 m.

FIGURE 6.7

CONTOURED DEPTH STRUCTURE TOP ERENG A SAND AND RMS AMPLITUDES
FOR ERENG A INTERVAL

The upside high (P10) case encompasses the entire amplitude anomaly
characterising the trap. This would extend the base of the trap down to circa
3,540 m in the axis of the channel, approximately at the level of the lowest
synclinal spill point.

There is no particular evidence for gas content of the Ereng Prospect, and fluid
content is uncertain.

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

57
In all cases, the key uncertainty centres on the nature of the combination of
stratigraphic pinchout, channel margin truncation and structural closure against
the faulted shale ridge to provide the key elements of the trap.


TABLE 6.4

PROSPECT ERENG

Prospect
Name
Licence
Name
GCoS
(%)
(MMBbl) (Bscf)
Ereng OML 120 133 228 364 240 47 150 321 171 13

6.1.3 Prospect Ewo North Upthrown (UT)

This is one of a cluster of prospects/leads on the northern edge of the seismic
survey area in approximately 750 m of water. It lies 5 km NNW of the Ewo-1 well
and targets the same fault block, although in a deeper reservoir level not
penetrated by the previous well, and further to the north west beneath the shallow
dipping listric fault plane (Figure 6.8). Ewo-1 did not reach its target depth but
encountered a minor (7.5 m) zone containing untested oil shows at the top of the
Miocene section. The reservoir target at Ewo North UT is estimated to be 1,290 m
below the oil-bearing sandstones in Ewo-1. Reservoirs are Middle Miocene
(Serravalian) age.

FIGURE 6.8

VERTICAL SEISMIC SECTION THROUGH EWO NORTH UPTHROWN (UT)

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

58
The boundaries of the prospect to the north are not well constrained by the 3D
reprocessed data volume, but it can be seen to comprise an interval of high
amplitudes in the footwall of a low angle listric fault plane that dips north-
westward. Deep imaging of this fault is uncertain; it may have been modified by
deep seated shale diapirism.

Two potential sand intervals are recognised, the upper designated Horizon 1 and
the lower Horizon 2 (Figure 6.8). Horizon 1 is best defined and can be seen to
comprise an incised channel complex, interpreted to be filled with multi-storey,
stacked channel sand bodies, although the northern margin of the sand body is
obscure and it is not entirely clear whether the trap is created by fault closure or
by the margin of the channel body. Horizon 2 does not contain any definable
sandstone geometries.

In the low volumetric case (P90), the prospect is limited to two separate pools in
each of Horizon 1 and Horizon 2, essentially occupying the crestal location against
the western bounding fault. There is strong amplitude support for this case in the
Lower sand (Figure 6.9).

FIGURE 6.9

CONTOURED DEPTH STRUCTURE TOP EWO NORTH UT HORIZON 1 AND RMS
AMPLITUDES FOR HORIZON 1 INTERVAL

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

59
Consideration of a wider amplitude signature suggests that the two sands may be
in communication in the best case (P50). Trap closure would rely on amplitude
shut-off at the margin of the channel body, although the closure northwards may
also be in part at the bounding fault.

Uncertainty over the nature of the northern channel margin in Horizon 1 leads to
the possible definition of a high (P10) case incorporating a larger volume. This
would necessarily be bounded to the south by the channel margin, and there is
some amplitude support for this, particularly in the far stack volume. Within
Horizon 2 (Figure 6.10), reservoir quality away from the crest of the structure
would appear to be poor. The prospect at this level would be bounded to the
south by the limit of the sandstones. To the north, sand distribution is obscure,
but the prospect has been tentatively extended to the bounding fault.

FIGURE 6.10

CONTOURED DEPTH STRUCTURE TOP EWO NORTH UT HORIZON 2 AND RMS
AMPLITUDES FOR HORIZON 2 INTERVAL

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

60
There is additional unmapped potential in the lowermost (Horizon 3) layer
approximately 2.5 km to the southeast of the Ewo North UT prospect.


TABLE 6.5

PROSPECT EWO NORTH UT

Prospect
Name
Licence
Name
GCoS
(%)
(MMBbl) (Bscf)
Ewo North UT OML 120 8 50 298 132 6 49 350 155 22

6.1.4 Prospect Ewo North Downthrown (DT)

The downthrown prospect at Ewo North lies in approximately the same location as
the Ewo North Upthrown prospect (Section 6.1.3), but at a shallower structural
level in the hangingwall of the same controlling fault. It is approximately 5 to
7.5 km northwest of the Ewo-1 well, in approximately 750 m water depth.

Sandstones are of Upper Miocene age, in the intervals designated Sequences
235 and 245 which are stratigraphically younger than the interval penetrated by
Ewo-1 in which a minor oil occurrence was noted.

Four reservoir levels can be identified with potential hydrocarbons occurring in
combination structural and stratigraphic traps. In the lower three (sequence 245)
the potential lies in the dip closure formed by the fault rollover (Figure 6.11), but in
the uppermost interval (sequence 235), the potential is offset to the north, within a
major ENE-WSW oriented channel sand body. It would only therefore be possible
to test all four closures within their overlap. Because of their similar overall
geology, they are evaluated together, although the pools might more properly
categorised as comprising two separate prospect locations. In each case
individual channel systems can be recognised, in contrast to the stacked and
amalgamated sand bodies that characterise other prospects.

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

61
FIGURE 6.11

VERTICAL SEISMIC SECTION THROUGH EWO NORTH DOWNTHROWN (DT)
PROSPECT

Definition of the northern edge of the horizon 235 sandstone body is impeded by
lack of seismic definition near the edge of the survey, but a clear channel margin
can be recognised to the south. It is not clear whether the northern margin of the
trap is provided by the equivalent channel margin or by closure against a fault
system (Figure 6.12). The low case (P90) volume is defined by a small dip-closed
body (to the north and east) within the channel, whose margin provides the seal to
the south. The best case (P50) extends potential down to include the most
significant amplitudes. It is noted that similar amplitudes characterise a small area
within the dip-closed prospect to the east (Figure 6.12), suggesting that these
represent a hydrocarbon-filled reservoir unit. The high case (P10) includes the
entire channel sand body.

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

62
FIGURE 6.12

CONTOURED DEPTH STRUCTURE TOP EWO NORTH DT HORIZON 235 AND RMS
AMPLITUDES FOR HORIZON 235 TO 245 INTERVAL

The trap at the 245, Mid Sandstone and Lower Sandstone levels is created by
rollover in the hangingwall of a major extensional fault. Each appears to constitute
a separately sealed pool in a sequence where sand development is relatively
sparse. Principal reservoir development is controlled by submarine channel
configuration, but the three pools appear to have a component of larger dip
closure, controlled by the rollover into the master fault (see Figure 6.13 for an
example at the Mid Sandstone level).

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

63
FIGURE 6.13

CONTOURED DEPTH STRUCTURE TOP EWO NORTH DT MID SANDSTONE
HORIZON 1 AND RMS AMPLITUDES FOR MID SANDSTONE TO LOWER
SANDSTONE INTERVAL

The strong amplitude signature of the sands suggests a predominant gas charge
but the possibility of oil legs has been incorporated into the volumetric analysis.
Although the presence of sand containing gas is strongly implied by the seismic
response in the core of each prospect, the key uncertainty would appear to be the
extent of reservoir quality sandstones and the potential for liquid hydrocarbons.


TABLE 6.6

PROSPECT EWO NORTH DT

Prospect
Name
Licence
Name
GCoS
(%)
(MMBbl) (Bscf)
Ewo North DT OML 120 2 12 35 16 21 72 163 84 32

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

64
6.1.5 Prospect Q

Prospect Q is a structural trap comprised of a faulted 4-way dip closed structure,
located 6.5 km to the south west of the Oyo field. Prospect Q is located in
approximately 420 m of water. CAMAC has interpreted prospective intervals at
three separate levels in the Middle to Late Miocene, and two intervals in the
Pliocene to Pleistocene, each prospective interval has been mapped on the 3D
dataset (Oyo seismic cube).

The three prospective intervals in the Middle to Late Miocene all require
stratigraphic pinch-out on to shale diapirs and various faults to seal in order for the
trap to work. Mapping the location of the pinch-out of the various Miocene
intervals onto the flanks of the diapirs is difficult, which makes the trap difficult to
define precisely. The seismic character of the Miocene section is generally low
amplitude. Intervals of higher amplitude reflections, with some internal geometry
indicative of more sandy facies, can be observed below the Miocene seismic
surfaces picked by CAMAC (Figure 6.14). The brightest amplitudes are
associated with the Miocene horizon 3, however these amplitude limits ado not
follow structure contours hence are less likely to be a direct hydrocarbon indicator.

The two shallower surfaces interpreted by CAMAC, do form a faulted 4-way dip
closed structure. The faulting is complicated and composed of multiple phases of
fault movement, faults are well imaged well set and it is possible to see that
certain fault traces continue to the seafloor, which indicates that some faults may
still be active today. The seismic character of the shallower horizons is indicative
of a more sand prone facies. Subtle amplitude brightening can be observed into
some of the faults. CAMACs interpreted surface Oyo Horizon one is at the same
stratigraphic interval as the intervals that are productive at Oyo West.

A low (P90) case for calculating GRV has been defined using CAMACs
interpreted surfaces and polygon outlines, incorporating all five prospective
intervals (three Miocene and two Pliocene). The GRV used in the volumetric
estimations at the low case was derived by using a fraction of the best case GRV,
which represents a reasonable uncertainty in the mapping, depth conversion and
percentage of hydrocarbon fill in the structure.

A best (P50) case for calculating GRV has been defined using CAMACs
interpreted surfaces and polygonal outlines, incorporating all five prospective
intervals (three Miocene and two Pliocene). The structural spill point of each
surface was applied as the cut-off for hydrocarbon column height. GRV was
calculated within CAMACs polygon outlines, using the seismically derived top
depth surface. This assumes the structure at each interval is fill-to-spill. The
reservoir thickness of the Miocene intervals was restricted to 75 m.

A high (P10) case for calculating GRV has been defined using CAMACs
interpreted surfaces and polygon outlines, incorporating all five prospective
intervals (three Miocene and two Pliocene). The GRV used in the volumetric
estimations at the high case was derived by using a multiplier of the best case
GRV, which represents a reasonable uncertainty in the mapping, depth

Oil and gas in place and the GCoS are presented in Table 6.7.

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

65
TABLE 6.7

PROSPECT Q

Prospect
Name
Licence
Name
GCoS
(%)
(MMBbl) (Bscf)
Q OML 120 219 350 533 366 53 146 290 162 17

CAMAC proposes an extension of Prospect Q to the west of its current location at
the Miocene Horizon 2 interval, which would add an additional 4,152 acres to the
prospect. GCA considers that mapping an extension to the west is compromised
by the poor quality of the Ewo 3D seismic volume in this area and would benefit
from reprocessing, using modern techniques. The 2D seismic grid in this area is
contaminated with multiples and other seismic artefact that may obscure seismic
interpretation at certain key intervals. Thus GCA has excluded this area from its
assessment of Prospect Q volumes.

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

66
FIGURE 6.14

VERTICAL SEISMIC SECTION THROUGH PROSPECT Q
WITH CONTOURED DEPTH MAP ON SHALLOW HORIZON

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

67
6.2 Western OML 120 and 121: Pliocene Prospects (Oil and Gas)

6.2.1 Prospect O

Prospect O lies in the extreme west of OML 120, partly straddling the boundary
with OML 133. The evaluation and volumetric analysis reported here address only
that part of the prospect which lies in OML 120. Water depth is approximately
860 m.

The prospect lies in the same Lower Pliocene canyon-fill section as that which
forms the reservoirs at Oyo West and Oyo Central, with reservoirs expected to be
composed of similar amalgamated stacked channel sandstones (Figure 6.15).

FIGURE 6.15

VERTICAL SEISMIC SECTION THROUGH PROSPECT O

The entire stacked channel fill sequence is characterised by strong amplitudes, in
contrast to the mud-dominated background sediment into which the canyon
incised. At the top of the prospect are particularly bright events, interpreted as
indicating the presence of gas-filled sandstone. There are two of these areas that
stand out. One is the crest of the prospect, the other on a terrace located on the
flank. Both of them lie within the overall structural closure (Figure 6.16). In the low
case (P90), the prospect is restricted to the crestal part of the structure and the
lower anomaly is inferred as a thin gas column within a dip closure, but of no
volumetric significance. The best case (P50) enlarges the gas column to include
this lower anomaly. The high case (P10) includes all of the channel body down to
the level of the maximum spill point.

In all cases the bulk of the stacked channel sands lie below the level of the
structural closure/hydrocarbon water contact and are interpreted as having no
viable lateral or bottom seal.

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

68
FIGURE 6.16

CONTOURED DEPTH STRUCTURE TOP O PROSPECT RESERVOIR AND RMS
AMPLITUDES FOR INTERVAL BELOW H50 REGIONAL MARKER INCLUDING OYO
CANYON TREND

The prospect is characterised by extremely bright amplitudes which can be shown
to lie within the structural closure, indicating primarily gas potential. Presence of
oil is suggested by its position with respect to the regional kitchens and a thin oil
leg is incorporated into the volumetric analysis.


TABLE 6.8

PROSPECT O

Prospect
Name
Licence
Name
GCoS
(%)
(MMBbl) (Bscf)
O OML 120 3 9 19 10 51 107 185 114 63

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

69
6.2.2 Prospect P

Prospect P lies in the extreme southwest of OML 121 in approximately 780 m of
water. It is a complex trap relying on closure created in Lower Pliocene canyon-fill
sandstones, partly via southward pinchout of the canyon-fill sandstone body onto
a structural high overlying a shale ridge, and partly by fault closure to the
northeast as a result of collapse of the underlying shale diapir (Figure 6.17).
Latest motion on the closing fault is of Pleistocene age, but unlike many other fault
planes in the area, does not continue to the Recent, which may be a critical factor
in maintaining a viable fault seal.

Regional correlation of the seismically-defined stratigraphic units suggests that the
canyon at Prospect P is approximately the same Lower Pliocene age as that
which contains the productive reservoirs at Oyo Central and Oyo West (Figure
6.17) and the reservoir is interpreted as a multi-storey stacked deep water
turbidite channel complex. Precise distribution of reservoir sandstones within the
prospect is uncertain. The location is remote from nearby well data to closely
calibrate the depth conversion but it is estimated that the crest of the prospect lies
at approximately 1,400 m below sea level.

The prospect is characterised by an extremely high amplitude response (Figure
6.18) with an approximately flat base, and a cross-cutting flat spot that appears to
strongly indicate the presence of a gas column and associated gas-liquid contact
(Figure 6.19). Based on regional hydrocarbon source rock and maturity models, it
is thought likely that the area of Prospect P has been exposed to a hydrocarbon
charge containing both gas and oil.

FIGURE 6.17

VERTICAL SEISMIC SECTION THROUGH PROSPECT P

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

70
FIGURE 6.18

RMS AMPLITUDES FOR BROAD INTERVAL 0.4 SECS BELOW H50 UPPER
PLIOCENE REGIONAL MARKER

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

71
FIGURE 6.19

CONTOURED DEPTH STRUCTURE TOP PROSPECT P RESERVOIR AND RMS
AMPLITUDES FOR BULK INTERVAL BETWEEN TOP AND BASE RESERVOIR

Based on a comparison with the response at the Oyo field, taking into account the
differences in the polarity of the seismic data between the two surveys, it is
inferred that there is some evidence for a deeper fluid contact than the more
obvious flat spot referred to above (Figures 6.20 and 6.21). At this stage, the
precise nature of this cannot be confirmed without further modelling, as it is not
consistently observed throughout the prospect in all sedimentary facies, and
furthermore it may represent a residual or palaeo-fluid contact. Nonetheless, it
suggests the presence of oil and indicates the possibility of a substantial oil
column that has been incorporated into the upside volumetric scenario.

High case
Low case
Best case
SE
NW
Figure 7.20
0 1 2 km
EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

72
FIGURE 6.20

VERTICAL SEISMIC SECTION (ARBITRARY LINE) THROUGH PROSPECT P

FIGURE 6.21

CONTOURED TIME STRUCTURE MAP AND RMS AMPLITUDES FOR INTERVAL
0.075 SECS BELOW TOP OF P PROSPECT RESERVOIR

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

73
A low case (P90) is defined by the extent of the amplitude anomaly and by the
upper limit of the main flat spot, but excluding units at the crest of the prospect
that do not have the strong amplitude response associated with gas-charged
sandstones. This case is characterised by a bulk rock volume gas/oil ratio of 0.95,
i.e. it is viewed that the amplitude response is essentially solely due to a gas
charge.

The most likely (P50) case includes the possibility of the development of a
significant oil leg (see above) beneath the more clearly imaged gas column, based
on the interpretation of the seismic amplitude signature.

The high (P10) case for the volume of the prospect is defined by including the
volume of the prospect down to the level of the maximum spill point from the depth
structure map on the top reservoir surface. More muted seismic amplitudes
suggest that this additional volume, if it is part of the trap, is more likely filled by oil
rather than gas.

The overall seismic signature of the prospect is similar to that at Oyo and a similar
range of reservoir parameters (net/gross and net porosity) have been used, along
with estimates of oil and gas saturation. Oil and gas properties from regional data,
along with estimates of the ambient reservoir conditions of temperature and
pressure are used to derive the required Bo and Bg values.

Liquid hydrocarbons are expected to be oils, approximately 35 API. An
allowance has been included for a condensate content within the gas volume.
Data from Oyo suggest a relatively lean wet gas with a condensate/gas ratio
(CGR) of between 8-12 Bbl/ MMscf of a liquid whose gravity ranges from
48.8-50.4 API, but regional data suggest that this can be higher: a small upside
has been incorporated into the volumetric analysis.


TABLE 6.9

PROSPECT P

Prospect
Name
Licence
Name
GCoS
(%)
(MMBbl) (Bscf)
P OML 121 39 151 336 173 325 719 1319 782 56

6.3 Eastern OML 121: Pliocene to Pleistocene Prospects (Gas)

6.3.1 Prospect Kigbo

The Kigbo Prospect is located towards the south east of OML 121 and lies in
approximately 400 m of water depth, 10 km west of the Ebolibo-1 gas discovery
well. The Ebolibo-1 Well was drilled in 2007 on a seismically defined, faulted
4-way dip closed structure. The discovery is supported by amplitudes, which shut-
off down-dip in coincidence with structure contours. The Ebolibo-1 well
encountered nearly 30 m of gas in the Pleistocene section.
EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

74
CAMAC has defined the Kigbo Prospect at the H114 and H114 A
(Plio/Pleistocene) seismic intervals (Figure 6.22).

FIGURE 6.22

VERTICAL SEISMIC SECTION THROUGH
KIGBO WITH DEPTH CONTOURED MAXIMUM AMPLITUDE OF H114

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

75
Both of the prospective intervals are supported by amplitude brightening up-dip
towards antithetic faults The antithetic faults are associated with a large down to
the south normal fault. The down-dip amplitude shut-off of the H114 interval is
coincident with structure contours (Figure 6.23). The amplitude response of the
H114 A interval is not as extensive or as high amplitude as the H114 interval. The
seismic response and character observed at Kigbo is very similar to that observed
at the Ebolibo discovery, which is represented by a strong trough-peak-trough
response and thought to be indicative of the presence of gas phase hydrocarbons.

FIGURE 6.23

CONTOURED MAXIMUM AMPLITUDE MAPS KIGBO H114 AND H114 A

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

76
Analysis of thermal maturity modelling results, indicate that the Kigbo Prospect is
located in an area prone to charge with gas-phase hydrocarbons. GCA agrees
with CAMAC that it is less likely that the Kigbo location has received any oil-phase
hydrocarbons, which is supported by analysis of seismic data.

The gross rock volume at the low case for Kigbo, is defined with a polygon
constructed around the amplitude response at the H114 interval (Figure 6.23). A
constant gross thickness of 30 m was applied to the low case, which represents
an approximate thickness of a single seismic loop (approximately 30 msecs).

The gross rock volume at the best case for Kigbo, used the same polygon as used
for the low case described above. The area for the best case also includes a
polygon constructed around the seismic amplitude observed at the slightly deeper
H114 A seismic interval. A constant gross thickness of 50 m was applied to the
best case.

A high case for the Kigbo Prospect is defined using the combined amplitude areas
from the H114 and H114 A seismic intervals (as was applied in the best case). A
gross thickness of 70 m was applied to the combined area in order to derive a
gross rock volume for the high case.


TABLE 6.10

PROSPECT KIGBO

Prospect
Name
Licence
Name
GCoS
(%)
(MMBbl) (Bscf)
Kigbo OML 121 0 0 0 0 154 382 693 407 42

6.4 Western OML 120: Miocene Leads (Oil and Gas)

Prospective Resources are assigned to twelve leads (Table 6.11), distributed over OML
120 and 121 in a series of combination structural-stratigraphic traps in reservoirs of
Miocene to Pliocene age.

6.4.1 Ereng B

Ereng B Lead is discussed in conjunction with the Ereng A prospect (see section
6.1.2).

6.4.2 Ewo Deep

The Ewo Deep Lead lies beneath the Ewo-1 well (Figure 6.24) which was not
completed to target depth because of mechanical problems. It lies in
approximately 650 m water depth. Correlations are tentative but the reservoir
target is in the Middle to Lower Miocene, slightly older than the targets at the
prospects Ewo North UT and Ereng. Top reservoir is mapped as Horizon 1 and
EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

77
the base of the unit containing potential reservoir is designated as Horizon 1A.
This latter is an unconformity surface post-dating an earlier phase of faulting.

TABLE 6.11

NIGERIA AS AT 30
th
JUNE, 2013

Lead Reservoir
Gross Unrisked
Prospective
Resources -
Leads Best
Estimate
Company
Working
Interest
(%)
Net Company
Unrisked
Prospective
Resources -
Leads Best
Estimate
GCoS
(%)
Oil /
Cond
(MMBbl)
Gas
(Bscf)
Oil /
Cond
(MMBbl)
Gas
(Bscf)
Kigbo Deep Top Miocene 0 254 30 0 76 10
R Plio / Pleistocene 0 60 30 0 18 15
ONIGU Plio / Pleistocene 0 162 30 0 49 15
Eba Lower Pliocene 37 37 30 11 11 15
Songu Pliocene 0 40 30 0 12 15
M Plio / Pleistocene 10 26 30 3 8 11
A East Mid-Late Miocene 53 210 30 16 63 11
A West Mid-Late Miocene 19 95 30 6 28 11
C Mid-Late Miocene 29 133 30 9 40 11
D Mid-Late Miocene 62 281 30 19 84 11
Ereng B Mid-Late Miocene 170 195 30 51 58 9
Ewo Deep Mid Miocene 164 0 30 49 0 9

Notes:

Resources.
4. Net Prospective Resources (Leads) in this table are Companys Working Interest fraction of the
Gross resources; they assume that CAMAC elects to invest at its full working entitlement under the
terms of the sharing agreement between CAMAC and Allied.

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

78
FIGURE 6.24

VERTICAL SEISMIC SECTIONS THROUGH EWO DEEP LEAD

The lead lies at the edge of the Ewo survey and it also suffers because of blanking
of the data beneath shallow gas-bearing units and beneath major fault planes
(Figure 6.24 lower image). This lead is situated in the footwall of a major young
fault to the west, but closure in a north-south direction results from a series of
older Miocene fault terraces, oriented approximately NE-SW. The main reservoir
drapes over these to create a dip closure to the north and a possible fault
truncation to the south. Within the sediment package there are indications of
channelized sand bodies and elevated amplitudes towards the base of the interval
mapped.

As a result of the lack of clear definition of the limits of the potential reservoir and
the controls on the trap, Ewo Deep is defined as a lead at this stage.

A single case volumetric case has been calculated, based on the limit of the
elevated amplitudes within the Horizon 1 unit. The key uncertainty is definition of
EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

79
the trap and of the distribution of reservoir (Figure 6.25). Beneath the Horizon 1A
unconformity surface, there is at least one package of seismic amplitudes that
may represent potential sandstone units which might, with further mapping,
develop into a separate play.

FIGURE 6.25

CONTOURED DEPTH STRUCTURE TOP EWO DEEP HORIZON 1 AND RMS
AMPLITUDES FOR BULK INTERVAL BETWEEN HORIZON 1 AND 1A

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

80
6.4.3 Lead A

Lead A is a combination structural and stratigraphic type lead, located on the east
and west flanks of a north to south trending shale ridge (Figure 6.26). CAMAC
has used 3D data to map prospective intervals at four separate levels in the
Middle to Late Miocene, The lead is located in approximately 400 m of water
depth and extending northwards from Oyo West.

GCAs review of the seismic data over the lead confirms the overall form of the
trap. Analysis of seismic amplitudes in the area where the horizons pinch-out onto
the east and west flanks of the shale ridge is made difficult by steeply dipping
beds and overlying amplitudes obscuring the data below. Therefore the exact
location of the pinch-out for each of the mapped horizons on to the shale
diaper/ridge is very difficult to map with any confidence. At the shallower
prospective intervals (Top Miocene and Miocene Horizon 2) there may not be any
pinch-out at all. Towards the crest of the shale ridge there are a series of faults,
some of which may provide seal at this location. Pinch-out of the deeper Miocene
horizons onto the shale ride is more likely, though with current data is difficult to
quantify. The key risk for Lead A is trap definition. It is believed that CAMAC
hopes to reprocess the 3D seismic data, which should help resolve the lead in
more detail, in an attempt to elevate Lead A to prospect status. Mixed phase oil
and gas hydrocarbons may be expected to be present at all levels of Lead A.

Gross and net best case estimates of Prospective Resource volumes and the
GCoS are presented in Table 6.11.

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

81
FIGURE 6.26

VERTICAL SEISMIC SECTION THROUGH LEAD A
WITH CONTOURED TIME MAP ON TOP MIOCENE HORIZON

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

82
6.4.4 Lead C

Lead C is a combination structural and stratigraphic type lead, located in Licence
OML 120, on the south west flank of a large shale diapir (Figure 6.27). CAMAC
has proposed prospective intervals at four separate levels in the Middle to Late
Miocene, each prospective interval has been mapped on the 3D dataset. The
lead is located in approximately 300 m of water depth and extending south east
from the Oyo field.

GCAs review of the seismic data confirms potential at the four seismic mapping
intervals. Similar to Lead A, the exact location of the pinch-out is uncertain;
however it is likely that pinch-out of occurs onto the shale diapir (Figure 6.27).
Analysis of seismic amplitudes in the area where the horizons pinch-out onto the
shale diapir is made difficult by steeply dipping beds and overlying amplitudes
obscuring the data below. Towards the crest of the shale ridge there are a series
of faults, some of which may provide seal at this location. East west trending
faults are required to provide seal to the north at all mapping horizons and are
difficult to map. The key risk for Lead C is trap definition. It is currently believed
that CAMAC expects to reprocess the 3D seismic data, which should help resolve
the lead in more detail. Mixed phase oil and gas hydrocarbons may be expected
to be present at all levels of Lead C.


EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

83
FIGURE 6.27

VERTICAL SEISMIC SECTION THROUGH LEAD C

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

84
6.4.5 Lead D

Lead D is similar to Leads A and C where four Middle to Upper Miocene intervals
have been mapped by CAMAC to form a combination structural and stratigraphic
trap located on the flank of large shale diaper. Lead D is located in Licence OML
120, on the east flank of a shale diapir (Figure 6.28). The lead is situated in
approximately 270 m of water depth, 1.5 km to the east of the Oyo field.

Review of the 3D seismic data confirms potential at the four seismic mapping
horizons. The upper two prospective intervals at Lead D (Top Miocene and
Miocene Horizon 2) require fault seal at the crest of the structure and pinch-out
onto the shale diapir further to the north (Figure 6.28). The deeper two
prospective intervals (Miocene Horizon 3 and Top Middle Miocene), are proposed
to pinch-out directly onto the shale diapir to the west and also rely fault seal of
east to west trending faults to the north.

Similar to other leads of this type, the exact location of the pinch-out is uncertain,
however it is likely that pinch-out of CAMACs deeper Miocene horizons occurs
onto the shale diaper, due to the diapirs vertical extent (Figure 6.28). Analysis of
seismic amplitudes in the area where the horizons pinch-out onto the flank of the
shale diapir is made difficult by steeply dipping beds and overlying amplitudes
obscuring the data below. The key risk for Lead D is trap definition.
Reprocessing the 3D seismic data should help resolve the lead in more detail.
Mixed phase oil and gas hydrocarbons may be expected to be present at all levels
of Lead D.


EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

85
FIGURE 6.28

VERTICAL SEISMIC SECTION THROUGH LEAD D

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

86
6.5 Eastern OML 121: Pliocene to Pleistocene Leads (Gas)

6.5.1 Lead R

Lead R is located towards the east of licence OML 121, in approximately 350 m of
water depth and 10 km to the north west of the Ebolibo-1 gas discovery well.
CAMAC has interpreted the prospect at the H110 (Plio/Pleistocene) seismic
interval, which is a similar stratigraphic interval to the pay zones encountered at
the Ebolibo-1 well. Lead R is characterised by strong amplitude responses, which
are similar to that observed at the Ebolibo-1 discovery well. Lead R is located in a
fault block created by two faults trending in an east to west direction associated
with a large growth fault, which trends in a south east to north west direction
(Figure 6.29). Lead R appears to be trapped to the north by a (recent) east to
west fault, there is sharp amplitude shut-off across the fault from south to north.
The amplitude dies out to the south, where the amplitude is coincident with
structure contours. Prospect R is located in an area considered to be prone to
charge with gas phase hydrocarbons.


EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

87
FIGURE 6.29

LEAD R WITH TIME CONTOURED MAXIMUM AMPLITUDE MAP AT H110

S
H110
N
Lead R
0 1 2 km
N
S
0 1 km
EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

88
6.5.2 Onigu Lead

Onigu is located in the north east of licence OML 121, 10 km due north of the
Ebolibo-1 discovery well. Onigu is situated in approximately 200 m of water at the
H114 (Plio/Pleistocene) stratigraphic interval. The lead is characterised by
amplitude brightening into a north to south trending normal growth fault, where the
lead is situated in the footwall block of the fault. Unlike some of the other gas
prone leads/prospects in this area the character of the seismic response is not the
same as that observed at Ebolibo where there is a strong trough-peak-trough
character, and amplitude shut-off is coincident with structure contours. The
seismic response at Onigu is not always trough-peak-trough and the amplitude
shut-off is not consistent with a structural contour. CAMAC has defined an area of
nearly 6 km
2
at Onigu, which could be refined to a smaller area that encompasses
just the amplitude anomaly (Figure 6.30). The lead relies on fault seal to the south
and east and lateral pinch-out or facies change to the north, which is not well
supported by the seismic data. Key geological risks for the Onigu lead are
associated with the various sealing mechanisms. Gas phase hydrocarbons are
expected at Onigu.


EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

89
FIGURE 6.30

ONIGU WITH TIME CONTOURED MAXIMUM AMPLITUDE EXTRACTION FROM H114

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

90
6.5.3 Eba Lead

Eba is located in the north of licence OML 121, 15.8 km due south of the Oyo field
in approximately 480 m of water depth. Eba is interpreted at the H150 (Lower
Pliocene) interval, which is a similar stratigraphic interval to the producing Oyo
field. The Eba lead is proposed to consist of a broad east to west trending canyon
that appears to be at least partially filled with sand prone facies (Figure 6.31).

Seismic data indicate that the base of the channel (oldest infill) is composed of
brighter seismic amplitudes and reflector geometries, indicative of sandy facies.
The upper section of the channel infill is generally lower amplitude and more
laterally continuous, indicative of deeper water, less sand prone facies. Eba relies
on lateral stratigraphic seal to the north west, fault seal to the south west and seal
against mud diapir and or faulting to the east. Therefore key geological risks for
Eba are associated with the multiple seal types required in order to trap
hydrocarbons. There is subtle evidence of a flat cross cutting event, which may
be a direct hydrocarbon indicator as is observed in certain other prospects in OML
120 and 121, though it is certainly less clear at Eba. The hydrocarbon phase
expected at Eba is mixed gas and oil phase hydrocarbons.


EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

91
FIGURE 6.31

EBA WITH CONTOURED TIME MAP

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

92
6.5.4 Songu Lead

The Songu Lead is located in the northern central area of OML 121, in 450 to
500 m of water column. The lead is interpreted at the H124 (Pliocene) seismic
horizon as three independent amplitude anomalies, which brighten close to normal
faults. Two of the amplitude anomalies are located in footwall locations and the
third (and largest) amplitude anomaly is located in the hangingwall of a large
normal fault trending south east to north west (Figure 6.32). The two anomalies in
footwall blocks (Figure 6.32) show amplitude shut-off down dip roughly coincident
with structural contours. The anomaly furthest to the east in the hangingwall block
of a normal fault is a stratigraphic anomaly and the amplitude shut-off is not
coincident with structural contours.

The seismic character of the amplitude anomalies is trough-peak-trough, similar to
that observed at the top of the Ebolibo gas discovery, which is approximately
23 km to the south east. GCA agrees with CAMAC that the Songu lead is likely to
be charged with gas phase hydrocarbons. Figure 6.33 shows a linear amplitude
anomaly located 1 km to the south of Songu, which trends from north east to
south west, which has a similar trough-peak-trough seismic character to Songu.
No volumes are carried by CAMAC for this feature, but may offer further potential.


EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

93
FIGURE 6.32

SONGU WITH CONTOURED TIME MAP

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

94
6.5.5 Lead M

Lead M is located in the far south of OML 121 in 400 to 420 m of water depth.
Lead M is interpreted below the H114 (Plio/Pleistocene) seismic marker, 15 km to
the west of the Ebolibo discovery and 2 km west of the Kigbo Prospect. The
seismic data appears to indicate that there may be a slightly more sand prone
package towards the top of CAMACs channel/slump package, which gives an
area of approximately 3.3 km
2
(Figure 6.33). The thickness of the more sand
prone package is interpreted to be approximately 50 m. The down-dip amplitude
is not coincident with structural contours. The lead would rely on a number of
geological factors to combine in order for an effective seal to be made, which
include; lateral facies change/pinchout, faulting and/or mud diapirism. The
hydrocarbon phase expected at Lead M is mixed phase.


EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

95
FIGURE 6.33

VERTICAL SEISMIC SECTION THROUGH LEAD M WITH TIME CONTOURED
MAXIMUM AMPLITUDE EXTRACTION AT TOP M CHANNEL HORIZON

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

96
6.6 OML 120: Miocene Leads

6.6.1 Kigbo Deep Lead

CAMAC has interpreted Kigbo Deep at the regional Top Miocene stratigraphic
interval. The Kigbo Deep Lead is situated partially below the Kigbo prospect
(Figure 6.34) and straddles the boundary between licences OML 121 and OPL
284-DO to the south, approximately 10 km to the west of the Ebolibo-1 discovery
well. Kigbo Deep is located in the down-thrown block (to the south) of a large
normal fault and is interpreted by CAMAC to be a dipping stacked pay system,
trapped by a combination of faulting and mud diapirs to the north and west. The
definition of the trap at Kigbo Deep is uncertain over the majority of CAMACs
polygon outline; mainly due to the poor resolution of the seismic data. There are
several possible reasons for the lack of resolution within the area of the lead,
which include; overlying bright amplitudes absorbing seismic energy; steeply
dipping beds; faulting and or mud diapirism. Therefore the key risk for Kigbo
Deep is trap definition. The imaging of the Kigbo deep lead may be improved
through reprocessing of the seismic data. Due to Kigbo Deeps location with
respect to thermal maturity mapping results, GCA has calculated gas phase
hydrocarbons.


EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

97
FIGURE 6.34

KIGBO DEEP LEAD WITH CONTOURED TIME MAP

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

98
7. GAMBIA

7.1 Background

CAMAC operates two offshore blocks in Gambia (West Africa) with a 100% working
interest. Block A2 is 1,282 km
2
and is immediately north of Block A5 which is 1,383 km
2
in
area (Figure 7.1). Water depth varies greatly from 50 m in the east, deepening rapidly to
approximately 1,000 m in the west. Operations are governed by a PSC with the Gambia
National Petroleum Company (GNPC), signed in May 2012.

The initial exploration period runs for a term of four years (to 2016) and has a number of
work commitments, each to be carried out on both Blocks A2 and A5. Work
commitments for the initial period are; a regional geological study; acquisition of 750 km
2

3D seismic data; drilling of one exploration well and evaluation of the results.

Following a successful completion of the initial exploration phase, it would be possible to
enact the first of two possible extension exploration periods; each has a period of two
years. Both periods have minimum work commitments to be carried out on both blocks,
which are: preparation work for drilling; drilling one exploration well and evaluating the
results.

7.2 Geological Setting

The blocks lie on the Northwest African passive margin. The overall stratigraphy is
presented in Figure 7.2. Triassic syn-rift deposits are followed by early J urassic
volcanism and oceanic break-up. Lower J urassic salt may be present but is probably not
significant in the vicinity of Blocks A2 and A5. A major aggrading J urassic to Lower
Cretaceous shelf edge runs through block. This is strongly controlled by basement
faulting and controls carbonate facies.

Shelf clastics of Albian to Cenomanian age are succeeded by major uplift and or eustatic
fall at the base Senonian. Erosional incision led to re-localisation of clastic reservoirs into
deeper water, followed by transgressive drowning of the modified shelf margin and
continuing passive margin sedimentation through Upper Cretaceous to Tertiary.

Marine source rocks occur in Lower J urassic, possibly Upper J urassic, and in the Albian
to Turonian.

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

99
FIGURE 7.1

LOCATION OF CAMAC BLOCKS, GAMBIA

A2
A5
Source: Deloittes
EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

100
FIGURE 7.2

STRATIGRAPHIC SUMMARY, OFFSHORE GAMBIA

7.3 Exploration History

These blocks are immature in terms of modern exploration, but are on the same
geographical trend as the maturing West African margin acreage to the south. One well
has been drilled on Block A2. The J ammah-1 well was drilled by Chevron 1979, to a
depth of 3,020 m, targeting Cenomanian and Albian trapping structures (Table 7.1). This
well encountered a thick, high quality reservoir with gas shows and was subsequently
plugged and abandoned. There have been no wells on Block A5, but four wells have
been drilled on Senegal acreage to the south. Africa Petroleum plans to drill Blocks A1
and A4, immediately to the east in 2013.

CAMAC provided an IHS Kingdom project to GCA, which contained a number of multi-
vintage, variable quality, 2D seismic data. This provides sparse coverage (2 km to 5 km
Triassic syn-rift
sequence
Albian-Cenomanian
reservoirs
Upper Cretaceous-
Tertiary deep water
reservoirs
Aggrading
Jurassic-Lower
Cretaceous shelf
complex
Source Rock
Reservoir Rock
Proven plays in basin
NEOGENE
PALAEOGENE
UPPER
CRETACEOUS
LOWER
CRETACEOUS
JURASSIC
TRIASSIC
PALAEOZOIC
EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

101
line spacing) to Blocks A2 and A5. The project also included CAMACs latest
interpretations and polygonal outlines of areas of interest.

TABLE 7.1

EXPLORATION WELLS GAMBIA

TD
(m)
J ammah-1 Block A2 Chevron 1979
P and A. Gas shows in several units in
Maastrichtian, Cenomanian and Albian
3,020

7.4 Prospective Resources

Two leads are defined by CAMAC, designated West and East. Both are located within
the shelfal area of the Cretaceous sequence and have potential inferred in intra-
Cenomanian sandstones and Albian sandstones, observed in J ammah-1.

7.4.1 West Lead

The West Lead is a structural trap in the footwall block of a major shelf margin
fault, mostly within Block A5, but with upside in Block A2 (Figure 7.3). It appears
entirely dip closed as the base Senonian unconformity does not cut as deeply in
this location as at J ammah-1 further north, but there is a possibility that local
incision to Cenomanian level may influence the trap and seal. Trap definition
uncertainty mostly results from the depth conversion in the region of rapidly
changing water depth over the present day shelf edge, and the lead may prove to
be part of a complex of further structurally high areas, linking through to the
J ammah-1 area.

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

102
FIGURE 7.3

CAMAC LEAD PORTFOLIO, GAMBIA

Thick Cenomanian shelf sandstone reservoirs occur at J ammah-1 and at Diola-1
and Casamance Maritime-4, to the south of Block A5, sealed by Upper
Cenomanian to basal Turonian mudstones.

Upper Albian sandstones are also observed at J ammah-1, sealed by Lower
Cenomanian mudstones.

Although gas shows are recorded at J ammah-1, no oil was reported and
hydrocarbon charge remains in doubt. Although some suggestions of shallow gas
exist, direct indications of hydrocarbons cannot be defined with confidence from
the 2D dataset of only moderate quality. Upper Cretaceous source rocks are
immature in this region of the shelf edge and long distance migration is necessary
from deeper water kitchens; although it is noted that base Senonian erosion may
have removed the Cenomanian to Turonian source rock intervals immediately to
the west. Further west, declining source quality and thickness, and the passage
into the oceanic regime with lower heat flows, may limit the possibility of major
source kitchen development. The possibility of Upper or Lower J urassic source
EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

103
rocks, proven elsewhere on the North African Atlantic margin, has not been
evaluated.

Indicative volumes and assessment of the geological chance of success are
presented below. Estimates of gross rock volume within the lead are based on
interpretation conducted by CAMAC, with an examination of sensitivities in the
mapping process. It is assumed that the closure will be full to the mapped spill
point and that reservoir parameters for the proposed Cenomanian and Albian
reservoirs will be similar to those at J ammah-1. An oil case is assumed, based on
regional information. The key issues of risk are the structural trap definition after
depth conversion, and the hydrocarbon charge model. With regard to the former
issue, it is expected that closer resolution of depth structure may lead to further
trap definition along the shelf margin trend beyond the lead currently defined.

7.4.2 East Lead

The East Lead straddles the A2 block boundary to the east (Figure 7.3). The
seismic data show a large regional structural nose plunging to the south, and the
lead lies on the flank of this. Critical to trap definition is demonstrating that the
structural nose closes to the north and at this time, there is no clear indication of
this with the present dataset.

No volumetric significance is attached to this area at present, but the possibility of
closures on the flanks of the regional structural nose remains to be further
investigated.

TABLE 7.2

GAMBIA AS AT 30
th
JUNE, 2013

Block Lead
Gross Unrisked
Prospective
Resources - Leads
Best Estimate
Company
Working
Interest
(%)
Net Company
Unrisked
Prospective
Resources - Leads
Best Estimate
GCoS
(%)
Oil / Cond
(MMBbl)
Gas
(Bscf)
Oil /
Cond
(MMBbl)
Gas
(Bscf)
A2 West: Intra Ceno. 160 0 100 160 0 5
A2 West: Albian 65 0 100 65 0 5

Notes:

Resources.
EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

104
8. KENYA

8.1 Background

CAMAC operates 4 blocks in Kenya, in all cases with a 100% working interest, although
the National Oil Company of Kenya (NOCK) has an option to exercise a participating
interest of up to 20% following discovery and approval of any development plan.

Block L1B is entirely onshore and covers a large area of 12,128.75 km
2
. It lies in the
Lamu Basin towards the centre of eastern Kenya in the Duruma Wajir Lowland, a
dissected low plateau, with residual hills up to approximately 400 m in height. Somalia is
directly to the east of the western block boundary (Figure 8.1). It is served by the B8
major highway which transects the western part of the block, linking the town of Garissa,
immediately to the north with the coast.

Block L16 (Figure 8.1) straddles the coast, totalling 3,613 km
2
, with approximately
2,100 km
2
onshore and 1,500 km
2
offshore, although it is considered an onshore block for
purposes of the contractual terms. Water depths are shallow shelf in the north and west,
ranging up to approximately 500 m in the far southeast of the block. The onshore portion
of the block is low lying coastal plain. Although the precise operational impact cannot be
verified, Block L16 partly contains areas designated as the Arabuko Sokoke Forest
Reserve (420 km
2
), within which there is the small Arabuko Sokoke National Park
(approximately 6 km
2
). Offshore, it also contains the Watamu and Malindi Marine
National Reserves small (approximately 10 km
2
) areas conserving the coastal and
shallow marine environment.

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

105
FIGURE 8.1

LOCATION OF CAMAC BLOCKS, KENYA

L-01B
L-16
L-27
L-28
Source: Deloittes
EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

106
Blocks L27 and L28 are further offshore with water depths ranging up from approximately
2,200 m to 4,000 m. Each block has an area of 10,585.62 km
2
.

The onshore blocks (L1B and L16), PSCs were signed by CAMAC in May, 2012 with an
initial exploration period of two years. Within this there is a requirement for each block to
acquire and process 1,000 km
2
of gravity and magnetic data and to acquire, process and
interpret 500 line km of new 2D seismic data. The first of these items is now complete
and interpretation products received. The first exploration period may be followed by two
extensions, each of two years. For both blocks the work obligations of the extension
periods are to acquire process and interpret 3D seismic data and the drilling of
exploration wells (Table 8.1). There is also a requirement to relinquish 25% of the area of
each block before or at the end of the initial exploration period and then a further 25 %
from each block before or at the end of the first additional exploration period.

TABLE 8.1

WORK COMMITMENTS ONSHORE BLOCKS L1B AND L16, KENYA

Period Duration New Geophysi cal Data Wells
1
st
2 years
1,000 km
2
of gravity and magnetics
500 line km of 2D seismic

2
nd
2 years 300 km
2
of 3D seismic One well to 3,000 m
3
rd
2 years 150 km
2
of 3D seismic One well to 3,000 m

For the offshore blocks (L27 and L28), the PSC was also signed in May, 2012 but the
initial exploration period is for three years. During this there is a requirement to conduct
geological and geophysical studies using existing data, to reprocess and re-interpret
existing 2D seismic data on the block and to acquire, process and interpret 1,500 km
2
of
3D seismic data. No substantial data purchase or acquisition has yet been completed in
the offshore blocks. The first exploration period may be followed by two renewals of two
years each, during which the drilling of exploration wells is required (Table 8.2).

There is also a requirement to relinquish 25% of the area of each block before or at the
end of the initial exploration period and then a further 25 % from each block before or at
the end of the first additional exploration period.

TABLE 8.2

WORK COMMITMENTS OFFSHORE BLOCKS L27 AND L28, KENYA

Period Duration G and G studies
New seismic
data
Wells
1
st
3 years
Integrated G&G studies
Reprocess and interpret existing
2D seismic data
1,500 km
2
of 3D
seismic data

2
nd
2 years
One well to
3,000 m
3
rd
2 years
One well to
3,000 m
EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

107
8.2 Geological Setting

The onshore blocks lie in the Lamu Embayment sedimentary basin (Figure 8.2). Initial
Karroo rift sediments of Permian to Lower J urassic age underlie a post rift to drift
sequence associated with the opening of the Western Indian Ocean via the southward
displacement of Madagascar along the Davie Fracture Zone, initially in the Middle
J urassic. Passive margin sedimentation was influenced onshore by the propagation of
the Central African Rift system into the area from the northwest, and there are
anomalously thick sediments of Lower Cretaceous age. Continuing Late Cretaceous to
Recent passive margin subsidence and sedimentation was interrupted by major uplift of
latest Cretaceous to early Tertiary age that led to substantial erosion.

The offshore blocks are located to the east of the northward continuation of the Davie
Fracture Zone and are interpreted to lie on oceanic crust of Middle to Late J urassic age.
Localised seamounts representing continuing volcanic activity occur in the general area,
although have not been mapped within the blocks themselves.

FIGURE 8.2

STRATIGRAPHIC SUMMARY, LAMU EMBAYMENT BASIN

Amboni Formation
Kofia Formation
Hagarso Formation
Karroo Sequences
AGE LITHOLOGY SE NW
MEGA
SEQ.
Locally absent
section on
principal highs
T
E
R
T
I
A
R
Y
C
R
E
T
A
C
E
O
U
S
J
U
R
A
S
S
I
C
PLIOCENE
MIOCENE
OLIGOCENE
EOCENE
PALEOCENE
U
P
P
E
R
L
O
W
E
R
SENONIAN
TURONIAN
CENOMANIAN
ALBIAN
APTIAN
BARREMIAN
NEOCOMIAN
MALM
DOGGER
LIAS
TRIASSIC
PERMIAN
KEN
3
KEN
5
KEN
6
KEN
8
K
E
N

1
0
K
E
N

1
2
K
E
N

1
3
K
E
N

1
4
KEN
15
EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

108
8.3 Exploration History

8.3.1 Block L1B

One well has been drilled on Block L1B, and there are three wells on L1A, to the
north (Table 8.3).

TABLE 8.3

EXPLORATION WELLS BLOCKS L1B AND L1A, KENYA

TD
(m)
Hagarso-1 Block L1B Texas Pacific 1975
P and A. Dry. Trace gas
shows only in Upper
Cretaceous.
3,092
Garissa-1 Block L1A
BP-Shell Petroleum
Development
Company
1968 P and A. Dry no shows 1,240
Kencan-1 Block L1A
Petro Canada
Resources
1986 P and A. Dry no shows 3,863
Wal Merer-1 Block L1A
BP-Shell Petroleum
Development
Company
1967
P and A. Gas shows
reported in Cretaceous.
3,794

CAMAC has access to approximately 1,750 line km of previous 2D seismic data
on Block L1B and additional seismic data on L1A.

8.3.2 Block L16

There has been no previous drilling on Block L16. The nearest relevant wells are
to the east at Maridadi-1, Simba-1 and Mbawa-1, and to the west at Rio Kalui-1.
CAMAC has access to no seismic data for this block.

8.3.3 Blocks L27 and L28

There has been no previous drilling on Blocks L27 and L28. The nearest wells are
in blocks to the west at Simba-1 and Mbawa-1 (Table 8.4).

TABLE 8.4

EXPLORATION WELLS BLOCKS L06, L10A, L08 AND L19, KENYA

TD
(m)
Maridadi-1B Block L6 Cities Service 1982
P and A. Gas shows in the
Tertiary.
4,198
Simba-1
Block
L10A
Total 1978
P and A. Gas shows in
Tertiary and Cretaceous
3,604
Mbawa-1-1 Block L8 Apache 2012
Gas discovery from Upper
Cretaceous sandstone
3,151
Rio Kalui-1 Block L19 Mehta and Co 1962
P and A. Oil staining in
Karoo sequence
1,538
EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

109
The recent discovery at Mbawa-1 is the first offshore hydrocarbon discovery in
Kenya.

CAMAC has access to no seismic data for this block, but adjacent regional 2D
lines provide guidance.

8.4 Prospective Resources

8.4.1 Block L1B

Interpretation of Block L1B is based on the previous wells drilled on Blocks L1A
and L1B, on the sparse, moderate quality, 2D seismic data grid (limited to the
centre of the block) and preliminary inferences from regional gravity data.

Block L1B lies on the Garissa High, a complex of extensional and inverted fault
blocks, with culminations in the area of the Garissa-1 and Kencan-1 wells, and in
the south around the Hagarso-1 well. Rocks at surface are Pliocene to Quaternary
in age. The Garissa High plunges southwards from Garissa-1, where lower
Tertiary rocks unconformably overlie Middle J urassic. The Cretaceous section
thickens moving southward. The area is characterised by a series of
approximately WNW-ESE trending faults and lineaments. The north east of the
block shows a series of fault terraces stepping down into the area of the Wal
Merer-1 well, where a considerable thickness of Lower Cretaceous section is
preserved.

Hydrocarbon indications are limited to minor trace gas shows in the Cenomanian
to Turonian section at Hagarso-1 and in the sandstones immediately beneath the
Base Tertiary unconformity at Kencan-1. There is also carbonaceous material
associated with dolomites, possibly pyrobitumen, in the Middle J urassic dolomites
of the Amboni Formation at Garissa-1. There are no clearly defined source rock
horizons in the wells drilled, but mixed oil and gas source potential is inferred from
regional data in the Upper Cretaceous. Levels of thermal maturity are interpreted
to be high, with greater chance of gas than oil in the area previously drilled.

Reservoirs consist of the Middle J urassic Amboni Limestone, limestone and minor
sandstones of the Albian Hagarso Formation and minor sandstones in the Lower
Kofia Formation of Turonian age. Reservoir quality in the Lower Cretaceous and
J urassic is poor and poor to moderate in the Upper Cretaceous.

General lead areas can be defined as structural dip closures within the complex of
fault blocks that comprises the Garissa High. These are not yet sufficiently
well-defined to permit an estimate of their volumetric potential, but three areas can
be defined which can be considered as envelopes containing areas of more
complex trap potential whose areas range from 17 to 148 km
2
. Although these
structural lead areas have been defined and provide an indication of potential trap
size, there is the risk of encountering a similarly unproductive section as that seen
at the previous wells to north and south. More significant prospectivity lies in the
fault terraces to the north, potentially containing an expanded Cretaceous and
Upper J urassic section. No leads or prospects are defined by CAMAC in this
area. Camac estimate there is exploration potential in J urassic sediments below
the section penetrated in Hagarso-1, however there is no quantitative data
available to GCA to estimate prospective resource volumes in this section.

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

110
Despite some previous activity, the potential of the area has not been fully
evaluated. The key risks are the unproven hydrocarbon source in the area, and
over-maturity of the Lower Cretaceous and older sections. Reservoir quality is
expected to be poor in rocks within and older than the Lower Cretaceous section.

8.4.2 Block L16

No seismic data are available to CAMAC for Block L16. Inferences on
prospectivity are drawn from regional data alone.

Karroo rocks of Triassic and Lower J urassic age crop out in the west of the block
overlain to the east by a series of Middle J urassic to Lower Cretaceous passive
margin rocks. These appear truncated by Lower Tertiary erosion, especially along
a high in the north of the block, followed by onlapping and overstepping Miocene
to Pliocene deposits. The coastal zone comprises Quaternary outcrop. Offshore,
the central/northern high continues, oriented approximately WNW-ESE, to the
south of which is a gravity low inferred as a sedimentary basin containing Middle
J urassic evaporites, deposited close to the break-up unconformity. Sediment
thickness is estimated up to approximately 8 km.

Petroleum source rocks may exist in a number of stratigraphic levels including the
syn-rift Karroo sequences of Permian to lower J urassic age, Lower Cretaceous,
Upper Cretaceous and Eocene. The older source rocks are probably gas-prone
and/or gas to over mature. The best opportunity for a mixed oil and gas charge
comes from the Upper Cretaceous petroleum system.

Principal reservoirs are expected to be sandstones of Upper Cretaceous to Lower
Tertiary age, which are proven hydrocarbon-bearing and productive to the east.

Trapping may arise from a combination of extensional structuring, inversion, salt-
related structures and stratigraphic closures in Upper Cretaceous to Paleocene
sands. The key uncertainty surrounds proving a viable petroleum system on the
block and the controls on the distribution and preservation of the main Upper
Cretaceous to possibly Lower Tertiary reservoirs.

No leads or prospects have been defined for Block L16 by CAMAC.

8.4.3 Blocks L27 and L28

Inferences on the prospectivity of the blocks are drawn from the adjacent seismic
data (in particular lines MCS_06A, MCS_06B and MCS_08), and from regional
analogues and overall fairways inferred from regional data. CAMAC does not
currently have access to the very small amount of 2D seismic data that exists on
block L27 and L28, with the exception on one regional 2D seismic line that runs
along the southern boundary of Block L28.

The principal hydrocarbon source rocks in the area are expected to be Upper
Cretaceous age and are mixed oil- and gas-prone. Additional potential source
rocks are inferred of Lower Cretaceous age, although more gas prone, and there
are rich, oil-prone Eocene source rocks. Levels of maturity are not proven on
Blocks L27 and L28, but there is greater chance of maturity commensurate with oil
or gas generation in the west of the block where sedimentary thickness above
oceanic basement is greater. The risk of hydrocarbon maturity is greatest for the
Tertiary source rocks
EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

111
Potential reservoirs occur in Upper Cretaceous and Lower Tertiary sandstones.
A mobile, overpressured shale unit occurs, possibly of Upper Cretaceous age,
which has led to local diapirism and to the development of a decollement surface,
above which a series of contractional faults and folds have created a series of
potential traps in the Upper Cretaceous and lower Tertiary units. Extensional
structural traps may occur beneath this mobile mudstone layer. Care must be
exercised in applying direct analogues from the adjacent Simba-1 and Mbawa-1,
as these lie on continental or transitional, rather than oceanic crust. Structuration
at these wells appears principally to be as a result of relatively late Tertiary
inversion to create broad regional highs and this process may have influenced
trap formation on Blocks L27 and L28. Deepwater sandstone bodies of Lower
Tertiary and Upper Cretaceous age may also contribute to a stratigraphic
component of trapping.

The key uncertainty is the identity of petroleum source rocks and the localisation
of source kitchens in an oceanic environment of low geothermal gradient.

No leads or prospects have yet been defined for Blocks L27 and L28.

9. ECONOMICS

GCA has conducted economic analyses on the Reserves pertaining to CAMAC. As these
are only associated with OML 120 and 121 in Nigeria, only the fiscal terms relevant to
those blocks are discussed herein. The licences held in Gambia and Kenya are under
Production Sharing Contracts but no summary of these has been provided herein.

GCA has conducted economic evaluations of the three production forecasts for the Oyo
field. These evaluations were prepared for the purpose of deriving the economic limit test
for reserves estimation.

In preparing its evaluation, GCA has modelled the applicable fiscal terms based on
GCAs understanding of the fiscal and contractual terms governing the property. The
value of physical assets, i.e. plant and equipment, has not been attributed separately as
their value has been implicitly included in the assessment of Economic Limit Test (ELT)
as part of the petroleum property rights relating to CAMACs interest in the Oyo field.

The reserves (as at 30
th
J une, 2013) attributable to the net economic interests in Oyo
have been derived using the pricing and inflation assumptions described herein. No
adjustments have been made for cash balances, inventories, indebtedness or other
balance sheet effects, other than those stated herein. GCA has been advised by CAMAC
that the planned replacement FPSO contract for the Petrojarl will begin in Q4 2014 and
will last for a minimum of 5 years, with options for extensions.

9.1 Fiscal Terms

GCA's assessment is based upon GCA's understanding of the fiscal and contractual
terms governing the asset Oil Mining Lease (OML) 120 and 121.

The OML was granted 27
th
February, 2001 for a 20 year term under the Petroleum Act
1969.

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

112
Nigerian Fiscal Terms

GCA understands that the license is governed by the Nigerian Deep Offshore & Inland
Basin Production Sharing Contract (PSC) Act 1999 Terms. The block was awarded on a
Sole Risk basis with the understanding that the Government reserves the right to a
participating interest at any time in the life of the lease.

The PSC provides for a 12% royalty payment along with a Petroleum Profit Tax (50% of
the Chargeable profit), an Education Tax (2% of Assessable profit), and NDDC tax (3% of
capital budget) all of which is paid to the government.

CAMAC confirms that a capital allowance of US$1,140 MM is available for PPT
calculation.

Commercial Agreement between Allied and CAMAC

GCA understands that there is a commercial agreement between CAMAC and its partner
Allied Energy Resources. CAMACs current working interest in the Oyo field is current
30%.

The summary of the commercial agreement, as understood by GCA and reflected in the
net entitlement, is as follows:

In accordance with this agreement, CAMAC has elected not to participate in any
capital or operating costs for 2013 but thereafter it will pay its equity share of all
costs.

Cost oil is allocated in such quantum as will generate an amount of proceeds
sufficient for the recovery of Operating Costs. Cost Oil Limit is set at 80% after
Royalties, PPT, Education and NDDC taxes.

Cost oil is allocated between Allied and CAMAC based on accumulated operating
costs (defined as all expenditures including past costs as funded by each party.

Profit oil split between Allied and CAMAC is on a 70:30 basis even if CAMAC
elects to pay no costs. In the event that CAMAC contributes to the cost pool, in
addition to its 30% share, it gets allocated additional profit oil in the proportion of
the actual accumulated operating costs as funded.

In addition to the above, GCA has been provided the following cost pool for cost recovery
and profit sharing purpose.

Unrecovered cost pool of US$1,010 MM is split as follows:

Al l ied
(US$ MM)
CAMAC
(US$ MM)
CAPEX 958.2 -
OPEX 48.3 4.2

Total Accumulated cost pool to date of US$1,314 MM is used for profit sharing is split
US$1,282 MM to Allied and US$32 MM to CAMAC.

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

113
9.2 Price and Inflation Assumptions

GCA has used its in-house Brent price scenario for Q3 2013 and the prices
realized/expected from the sale of crude oil produced from Oyo were determined by
applying a price differential of +US$1.57/Bbl that reflects quality variation and location
against the Brent marker prices in Table 9.1.

TABLE 9.1

GCA BRENT PRICE SCENARIO EFFECTIVE Q3 2013

Year
Brent Price
(US$/Bbl)
H2 2013 101.29
2014 98.23
2015 94.39
2016 93.37
2017 99.71
2018 101.61
Thereafter 2% inflation

Costs are escalated at 2% from 2014.

9.3 Results of Economic Evaluation

Economic Limit Test (ELT)

Economic Limit as defined by SPE-PRMS is the production rate beyond which the pre-tax
net operating cash flows (net revenues minus direct operating costs) from a project are
negative; i.e. a point in time that defines the projects economic life.

ELT has been performed taking into account the minimum lease term for the FPSO as
advised by the client to be 5 years. In the case of early economic cut-off, the remaining
fixed obligation of the FPSO costs would be included in the ELT calculation.

TABLE 9.2

SUMMARY OF OYO FIELD RESERVES ESTIMATE AS OF 30
th
JUNE, 2013

Category
Gross Oil
(MMBbl)
CAMAC Net Entitlement Oil
(MMBbl)
Total Proved (1P) 10.85 2.8
Proved +Probable (2P) 14.05 3.7
Proved +Probable +Possible (3P) 32.10 7.9

Note:

1. Net entitlement reflects the terms of the agreement between CAMAC and Allied based on a cost oil
+profit oil basis as described above and also reflects CAMACs additional carried interest in past
investments.

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

114
10. QUALIFICATIONS

GCA is an independent international energy advisory group of 50 years standing, whose
expertise includes petroleum reservoir evaluation and economic analysis.

The report was prepared by GCA staff under the supervision of Mr. Chris Rachwal, aided
by Dr. Nick Stronach, Dr. Hanli de la Porte, Ms. Ulamen Verre and Mr. Tom Hancock.
The final report was approved at the corporate level by Mr. Brian Rhodes.

Mr. Rhodes holds a B.Sc. (Hons) Geology, is a member of the Energy Institute, the
Petroleum Exploration Society of Great Britain, the Society of Petroleum Engineers and
the European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers, and has more than 39 years
industry experience. Mr. Chris Rachwal holds a B.Sc. in Geology and a M.Sc. in
Petroleum Geology and has more than 36 years industry experience. Dr. Stronach has a
PhD in Geology, is a UK Chartered Geologist and has 30 years' experience in oil and gas
exploration. Dr. de la Porte has a PhD in Petroleum Engineering, is a member of the
Society of Petroleum Engineers and has 24 years of industry experience. Ms. Ulamen
Verre has a B.Sc. in Economics and Statistics and a M.Sc. in Energy & Environmental
Management & Economics and has 12 years of industry experience. Mr. Tom Hancock
has a B.Sc. (Hons) in Geology with Ocean Science, is a fellow of the Geological Society
of London and a member of the Petroleum Exploration Society of Great Britain and has
more than 8 years industry experience.

11. BASIS OF OPINION

This document must be considered in its entirety. It reflects GCAs informed professional
judgment based on accepted standards of professional investigation and, as applicable,
the data and information provided by the Client, the limited scope of engagement, and the
time permitted to conduct the evaluation.

In line with those accepted standards, this document does not in any way constitute or
make a guarantee or prediction of results, and no warranty is implied or expressed that
actual outcome will conform to the outcomes presented herein. GCA has not
independently verified any information provided by or at the direction of the Client, and
has accepted the accuracy and completeness of these data. GCA has no reason to
believe that any material facts have been withheld from it, but does not warrant that its
inquiries have revealed all of the matters that a more extensive examination might
otherwise disclose.

The opinions expressed herein are subject to and fully qualified by the generally accepted
uncertainties associated with the interpretation of geoscience and engineering data and
do not reflect the totality of circumstances, scenarios and information that could
potentially affect decisions made by the reports recipients and/or actual results. The
opinions and statements contained in this report are made in good faith and in the belief
that such opinions and statements are representative of prevailing physical and economic
circumstances.

Yours sincerely
GAFFNEY CLINE & ASSOCIATES

Brian Rhodes
Global Director Corporate Advisory Services
EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

APPENDIX I

Abbreviated form of SPE PRMS

Society of Petroleum Engineers, World Petroleum Council, American Association of Petroleum
Geologists and Society of Petroleum Evaluation Engineers
Petroleum Resources Management System
Definitions and Guidelines (
1
)
March 2007

Preamble

Petroleum resources are the estimated quantities of hydrocarbons naturally occurring on or within the Earths
crust. Resource assessments estimate total quantities in known and yet-to-be-discovered accumulations;
resources evaluations are focused on those quantities that can potentially be recovered and marketed by
commercial projects. A petroleum resources management system provides a consistent approach to estimating
petroleum quantities, evaluating development projects, and presenting results within a comprehensive
classification framework.

International efforts to standardize the definition of petroleum resources and how they are estimated began in the
1930s. Early guidance focused on Proved Reserves. Building on work initiated by the Society of Petroleum
Evaluation Engineers (SPEE), SPE published definitions for all Reserves categories in 1987. In the same year,
the World Petroleum Council (WPC, then known as the World Petroleum Congress), working independently,
published Reserves definitions that were strikingly similar. In 1997, the two organizations jointly released a single
set of definitions for Reserves that could be used worldwide. In 2000, the American Association of Petroleum
Geologists (AAPG), SPE and WPC jointly developed a classification system for all petroleum resources. This
was followed by additional supporting documents: supplemental application evaluation guidelines (2001) and a
glossary of terms utilized in Resources definitions (2005). SPE also published standards for estimating and
auditing reserves information (revised 2007).

These definitions and the related classification system are now in common use internationally within the
petroleum industry. They provide a measure of comparability and reduce the subjective nature of resources
estimation. However, the technologies employed in petroleum exploration, development, production and
processing continue to evolve and improve. The SPE Oil and Gas Reserves Committee works closely with other
organizations to maintain the definitions and issues periodic revisions to keep current with evolving technologies
and changing commercial opportunities.

The SPE PRMS document consolidates, builds on, and replaces guidance previously contained in the 1997
Petroleum Reserves Definitions, the 2000 Petroleum Resources Classification and Definitions publications, and
the 2001 Guidelines for the Evaluation of Petroleum Reserves and Resources; the latter document remains a
valuable source of more detailed background information.,

These definitions and guidelines are designed to provide a common reference for the international petroleum
industry, including national reporting and regulatory disclosure agencies, and to support petroleum project and
portfolio management requirements. They are intended to improve clarity in global communications regarding
petroleum resources. It is expected that SPE PRMS will be supplemented with industry education programs and
application guides addressing their implementation in a wide spectrum of technical and/or commercial settings.

It is understood that these definitions and guidelines allow flexibility for users and agencies to tailor application
for their particular needs; however, any modifications to the guidance contained herein should be clearly
identified. The definitions and guidelines contained in this document must not be construed as modifying the
interpretation or application of any existing regulatory reporting requirements.

The full text of the SPE PRMS Definitions and Guidelines can be viewed at:
www.spe.org/specma/binary/files/6859916Petroleum_Resources_Management_System_2007.pdf

1
These Definitions and Guidelines are extracted from the Society of Petroleum Engineers / World Petroleum Council /
American Association of Petroleum Geologists / Society of Petroleum Evaluation Engineers (SPE/WPC/AAPG/SPEE)
Petroleum Resources Management System document (SPE PRMS), approved in March 2007.

RESERVES
Reserves are those quantities of petroleum anticipated to be commercially recoverable by application of
development projects to known accumulations from a given date forward under defined conditions.
Reserves must satisfy four criteria: they must be discovered, recoverable, commercial, and remaining based on the
development project(s) applied. Reserves are further subdivided in accordance with the level of certainty associated
with the estimates and may be sub-classified based on project maturity and/or characterized by their development and
production status. To be included in the Reserves class, a project must be sufficiently defined to establish its
commercial viability. There must be a reasonable expectation that all required internal and external approvals will be
forthcoming, and there is evidence of firm intention to proceed with development within a reasonable time frame. A
reasonable time frame for the initiation of development depends on the specific circumstances and varies according to
the scope of the project. While 5 years is recommended as a benchmark, a longer time frame could be applied where,
for example, development of economic projects are deferred at the option of the producer for, among other things,
market-related reasons, or to meet contractual or strategic objectives. In all cases, the justification for classification as
Reserves should be clearly documented. To be included in the Reserves class, there must be a high confidence in the
commercial producibility of the reservoir as supported by actual production or formation tests. In certain cases,
Reserves may be assigned on the basis of well logs and/or core analysis that indicate that the subject reservoir is
hydrocarbon-bearing and is analogous to reservoirs in the same area that are producing or have demonstrated the
ability to produce on formation tests.
On Production
The development project is currently producing and selling petroleum to market.
The key criterion is that the project is receiving income from sales, rather than the approved development project
necessarily being complete. This is the point at which the project chance of commerciality can be said to be
100%. The project decision gate is the decision to initiate commercial production from the project.
Approved for Development
A discovered accumulation where project activities are ongoing to justify commercial development in the
foreseeable future.
At this point, it must be certain that the development project is going ahead. The project must not be subject to
any contingencies such as outstanding regulatory approvals or sales contracts. Forecast capital expenditures
should be included in the reporting entitys current or following years approved budget. The project decision
gate is the decision to start investing capital in the construction of production facilities and/or drilling development
wells.
Justified for Development
Implementation of the development project is justified on the basis of reasonable forecast commercial conditions
at the time of reporting, and there are reasonable expectations that all necessary approvals/contracts will be
obtained.
In order to move to this level of project maturity, and hence have reserves associated with it, the development
project must be commercially viable at the time of reporting, based on the reporting entitys assumptions of future
prices, costs, etc. (forecast case) and the specific circumstances of the project. Evidence of a firm intention to
proceed with development within a reasonable time frame will be sufficient to demonstrate commerciality. There
should be a development plan in sufficient detail to support the assessment of commerciality and a reasonable
expectation that any regulatory approvals or sales contracts required prior to project implementation will be
forthcoming. Other than such approvals/contracts, there should be no known contingencies that could preclude
the development from proceeding within a reasonable timeframe (see Reserves class). The project decision
gate is the decision by the reporting entity and its partners, if any, that the project has reached a level of
technical and commercial maturity sufficient to justify proceeding with development at that point in time.

Proved Reserves

Proved Reserves are those quantities of petroleum, which by analysis of geoscience and engineering data,
can be estimated with reasonable certainty to be commercially recoverable, from a given date forward, from
known reservoirs and under defined economic conditions, operating methods, and government regulations.

If deterministic methods are used, the term reasonable certainty is intended to express a high degree of
confidence that the quantities will be recovered. If probabilistic methods are used, there should be at least a
90% probability that the quantities actually recovered will equal or exceed the estimate. The area of the
reservoir considered as Proved includes:
(1) the area delineated by drilling and defined by fluid contacts, if any, and
(2) adjacent undrilled portions of the reservoir that can reasonably be judged as continuous with it and
commercially productive on the basis of available geoscience and engineering data.
In the absence of data on fluid contacts, Proved quantities in a reservoir are limited by the lowest known
hydrocarbon (LKH) as seen in a well penetration unless otherwise indicated by definitive geoscience,
engineering, or performance data. Such definitive information may include pressure gradient analysis and
seismic indicators. Seismic data alone may not be sufficient to define fluid contacts for Proved reserves (see
2001 Supplemental Guidelines, Chapter 8). Reserves in undeveloped locations may be classified as Proved
provided that the locations are in undrilled areas of the reservoir that can be judged with reasonable certainty
to be commercially productive. Interpretations of available geoscience and engineering data indicate with
reasonable certainty that the objective formation is laterally continuous with drilled Proved locations. For
Proved Reserves, the recovery efficiency applied to these reservoirs should be defined based on a range of
possibilities supported by analogs and sound engineering judgment considering the characteristics of the
Proved area and the applied development program.

Probable Reserves

Probable Reserves are those additional Reserves which analysis of geoscience and engineering data indicate
are less likely to be recovered than Proved Reserves but more certain to be recovered than Possible
Reserves.

It is equally likely that actual remaining quantities recovered will be greater than or less than the sum of the
estimated Proved plus Probable Reserves (2P). In this context, when probabilistic methods are used, there
should be at least a 50% probability that the actual quantities recovered will equal or exceed the 2P estimate.
Probable Reserves may be assigned to areas of a reservoir adjacent to Proved where data control or
interpretations of available data are less certain. The interpreted reservoir continuity may not meet the
reasonable certainty criteria. Probable estimates also include incremental recoveries associated with project
recovery efficiencies beyond that assumed for Proved.

Possible Reserves

Possible Reserves are those additional reserves which analysis of geoscience and engineering data indicate
are less likely to be recoverable than Probable Reserves

The total quantities ultimately recovered from the project have a low probability to exceed the sum of Proved
plus Probable plus Possible (3P), which is equivalent to the high estimate scenario. When probabilistic
methods are used, there should be at least a 10% probability that the actual quantities recovered will equal or
exceed the 3P estimate. Possible Reserves may be assigned to areas of a reservoir adjacent to Probable
where data control and interpretations of available data are progressively less certain. Frequently, this may be
in areas where geoscience and engineering data are unable to clearly define the area and vertical reservoir
limits of commercial production from the reservoir by a defined project. Possible estimates also include
incremental quantities associated with project recovery efficiencies beyond that assumed for Probable.

Probable and Possible Reserves

(See above for separate criteria for Probable Reserves and Possible Reserves.)

The 2P and 3P estimates may be based on reasonable alternative technical and commercial interpretations
within the reservoir and/or subject project that are clearly documented, including comparisons to results in
successful similar projects. In conventional accumulations, Probable and/or Possible Reserves may be
assigned where geoscience and engineering data identify directly adjacent portions of a reservoir within the
same accumulation that may be separated from Proved areas by minor faulting or other geological
discontinuities and have not been penetrated by a wellbore but are interpreted to be in communication with the
known (Proved) reservoir. Probable or Possible Reserves may be assigned to areas that are structurally
higher than the Proved area. Possible (and in some cases, Probable) Reserves may be assigned to areas
that are structurally lower than the adjacent Proved or 2P area. Caution should be exercised in assigning
Reserves to adjacent reservoirs isolated by major, potentially sealing, faults until this reservoir is penetrated
and evaluated as commercially productive. Justification for assigning Reserves in such cases should be
clearly documented. Reserves should not be assigned to areas that are clearly separated from a known
accumulation by non-productive reservoir (i.e., absence of reservoir, structurally low reservoir, or negative test
results); such areas may contain Prospective Resources. In conventional accumulations, where drilling has
defined a highest known oil (HKO) elevation and there exists the potential for an associated gas cap, Proved
oil Reserves should only be assigned in the structurally higher portions of the reservoir if there is reasonable
certainty that such portions are initially above bubble point pressure based on documented engineering
analyses. Reservoir portions that do not meet this certainty may be assigned as Probable and Possible oil
and/or gas based on reservoir fluid properties and pressure gradient interpretations.

Developed Reserves

Developed Reserves are expected quantities to be recovered from existing wells and facilities.

Reserves are considered developed only after the necessary equipment has been installed, or
when the costs to do so are relatively minor compared to the cost of a well. Where required facilities
become unavailable, it may be necessary to reclassify Developed Reserves as Undeveloped.
Developed Reserves may be further sub-classified as Producing or Non-Producing.

Developed Producing Reserves

Developed Producing Reserves are expected to be recovered from completion intervals
that are open and producing at the time of the estimate.

Improved recovery reserves are considered producing only after the improved recovery
project is in operation.

Developed Non-Producing Reserves

Developed Non-Producing Reserves include shut-in and behind-pipe Reserves

Shut-in Reserves are expected to be recovered from:
(1) completion intervals which are open at the time of the estimate but which have
not yet started producing,
(2) wells which were shut-in for market conditions or pipeline connections, or
(3) wells not capable of production for mechanical reasons.
Behind-pipe Reserves are expected to be recovered from zones in existing wells which
will require additional completion work or future re-completion prior to start of production.
In all cases, production can be initiated or restored with relatively low expenditure
compared to the cost of drilling a new well.

Undeveloped Reserves

Undeveloped Reserves are quantities expected to be recovered through future investments:

(1) from new wells on undrilled acreage in known accumulations,
(2) from deepening existing wells to a different (but known) reservoir,
(3) from infill wells that will increase recovery, or
(4) where a relatively large expenditure (e.g. when compared to the cost of drilling a new well)
is required to
(a) recomplete an existing well or
(b) install production or transportation facilities for primary or improved recovery
projects.

CONTINGENT RESOURCES
Those quantities of petroleum estimated, as of a given date, to be potentially recoverable from known
accumulations by application of development projects, but which are not currently considered to be
commercially recoverable due to one or more contingencies.
Contingent Resources may include, for example, projects for which there are currently no viable markets, or
where commercial recovery is dependent on technology under development, or where evaluation of the
accumulation is insufficient to clearly assess commerciality. Contingent Resources are further categorized in
accordance with the level of certainty associated with the estimates and may be sub-classified based on project
maturity and/or characterized by their economic status.

Development Pending
A discovered accumulation where project activities are ongoing to justify commercial development in the
foreseeable future.
The project is seen to have reasonable potential for eventual commercial development, to the extent that
further data acquisition (e.g. drilling, seismic data) and/or evaluations are currently ongoing with a view to
confirming that the project is commercially viable and providing the basis for selection of an appropriate
development plan. The critical contingencies have been identified and are reasonably expected to be
resolved within a reasonable time frame. Note that disappointing appraisal/evaluation results could lead to a
re-classification of the project to On Hold or Not Viable status. The project decision gate is the decision
to undertake further data acquisition and/or studies designed to move the project to a level of technical and
commercial maturity at which a decision can be made to proceed with development and production.
Development Unclarified or on Hold
A discovered accumulation where project activities are on hold and/or where justification as a commercial
development may be subject to significant delay.

The project is seen to have potential for eventual commercial development, but further appraisal/evaluation
activities are on hold pending the removal of significant contingencies external to the project, or substantial
further appraisal/evaluation activities are required to clarify the potential for eventual commercial
development. Development may be subject to a significant time delay. Note that a change in circumstances,
such that there is no longer a reasonable expectation that a critical contingency can be removed in the
foreseeable future, for example, could lead to a reclassification of the project to Not Viable status. The
project decision gate is the decision to either proceed with additional evaluation designed to clarify the
potential for eventual commercial development or to temporarily suspend or delay further activities pending
resolution of external contingencies.
Development Not Viable
A discovered accumulation for which there are no current plans to develop or to acquire additional data at the
time due to limited production potential.

The project is not seen to have potential for eventual commercial development at the time of reporting, but
the theoretically recoverable quantities are recorded so that the potential opportunity will be recognized in the
event of a major change in technology or commercial conditions. The project decision gate is the decision
not to undertake any further data acquisition or studies on the project for the foreseeable future.

PROSPECTIVE RESOURCES

Those quantities of petroleum which are estimated, as of a given date, to be potentially recoverable from
undiscovered accumulations.

Potential accumulations are evaluated according to their chance of discovery and, assuming a discovery, the estimated
quantities that would be recoverable under defined development projects. It is recognized that the development
programs will be of significantly less detail and depend more heavily on analog developments in the earlier phases of
exploration.

Prospect

A project associated with a potential accumulation that is sufficiently well defined to represent a viable drilling
target.

Project activities are focused on assessing the chance of discovery and, assuming discovery, the range of
potential recoverable quantities under a commercial development program.

Lead

A project associated with a potential accumulation that is currently poorly defined and requires more data
acquisition and/or evaluation in order to be classified as a prospect.

Project activities are focused on acquiring additional data and/or undertaking further evaluation designed to
confirm whether or not the lead can be matured into a prospect. Such evaluation includes the assessment of
the chance of discovery and, assuming discovery, the range of potential recovery under feasible development
scenarios.

Play

A project associated with a prospective trend of potential prospects, but which requires more data acquisition
and/or evaluation in order to define specific leads or prospects.

Project activities are focused on acquiring additional data and/or undertaking further evaluation designed to
define specific leads or prospects for more detailed analysis of their chance of discovery and, assuming
discovery, the range of potential recovery under hypothetical development scenarios.

RESOURCES CLASSIFICATION

PROJECT MATURITY

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

APPENDIX II

Glossary

EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

GLOSSARY
List of Standard Oil Industry Terms and Abbreviations

ABEX Abandonment Expenditure
ACQ Annual Contract Quantity
o
API Degrees API (American Petroleum Institute)
AAPG American Association of Petroleum Geologists
AVO Amplitude versus Offset
A$ Australian Dollars
B Billion (10
9
)
Bbl Barrels
/Bbl per barrel
BBbl Billion Barrels
BHA Bottom Hole Assembly
BHC Bottom Hole Compensated
Bscf or Bcf Billion standard cubic feet
Bscfd or Bcfd Billion standard cubic feet per day
Bm
3
Billion cubic metres
bcpd Barrels of condensate per day
BHP Bottom Hole Pressure
blpd Barrels of liquid per day
bpd Barrels per day
boe Barrels of oil equivalent @ xxx mcf/Bbl
boepd Barrels of oil equivalent per day @ xxx mcf/Bbl
BOP Blow Out Preventer
bopd Barrels oil per day
bopm Barrels of oil per month
bwpd Barrels of water per day
BS&W Bottom sediment and water
BTU British Thermal Units
bwpd Barrels water per day
CBM Coal Bed Methane
CO2

Carbon Dioxide
CAPEX Capital Expenditure
CCGT Combined Cycle Gas Turbine
cm centimetres
CMM Coal Mine Methane
CNG Compressed Natural Gas
Cp Centipoise (a measure of viscosity)
CSG Coal Seam Gas
CT Corporation Tax
DCQ Daily Contract Quantity
Deg C Degrees Celsius
Deg F Degrees Fahrenheit
DHI Direct Hydrocarbon Indicator
DST Drill Stem Test
DWT Dead-weight ton
E&A Exploration & Appraisal
E&P Exploration and Production
EBIT Earnings before Interest and Tax
EBITDA Earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation
EI Entitlement Interest
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EMV Expected Monetary Value
EOR Enhanced Oil Recovery
EUR Estimated Ultimate Recovery
FDP Field Development Plan
FEED Front End Engineering and Design
FPSO Floating Production, Storage and Offloading
FSO Floating Storage and Offloading
ft Foot/feet
Fx Foreign Exchange Rate
g gram
g/cc grams per cubic centimetre
gal gallon
gal/d gallons per day
EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

G&A General and Administrative costs
GBP Pounds Sterling
GDT Gas Down to
GIIP Gas initially in place
GJ Gigajoules (one billion J oules)
GOR Gas Oil Ratio
GTL Gas to Liquids
GWC Gas water contact
HDT Hydrocarbons Down to
HSE Health, Safety and Environment
HSFO High Sulphur Fuel Oil
HUT Hydrocarbons up to
H2S Hydrogen Sulphide
IOR Improved Oil Recovery
IPP Independent Power Producer
IRR Internal Rate of Return
J J oule (Metric measurement of energy) I kilojoule =0.9478 BTU)
k Permeability
KB Kelly Bushing
KJ Kilojoules (one Thousand J oules)
kl Kilolitres
km Kilometres
km
2
Square kilometres
kPa Thousands of Pascals (measurement of pressure)
KW Kilowatt
KWh Kilowatt hour
LKG Lowest Known Gas
LKH Lowest Known Hydrocarbons
LKO Lowest Known Oil
LNG Liquefied Natural Gas
LoF Life of Field
LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas
LTI Lost Time Injury
LWD Logging while drilling
m Metres
M Thousand
m
3
Cubic metres
Mcf or Mscf Thousand standard cubic feet
MCM Management Committee Meeting
MMcf or MMscf Million standard cubic feet
m
3
d

Cubic metres per day
mD Measure of Permeability in millidarcies
MD Measured Depth
MDT Modular Dynamic Tester
Mean Arithmetic average of a set of numbers
Median Middle value in a set of values
MFT Multi Formation Tester
mg/l milligrams per litre
MJ Megajoules (One Million J oules)
Mm
3
Thousand Cubic metres
Mm
3
d

Thousand Cubic metres per day
MM Million
MMBbl Millions of barrels
MMBO Million barrels of oil
MMBTU Millions of British Thermal Units
Mode Value that exists most frequently in a set of values =most likely
Mscfd Thousand standard cubic feet per day
MMscfd Million standard cubic feet per day
MW Megawatt
MWD Measuring While Drilling
MWh Megawatt hour
mya Million years ago
NGL Natural Gas Liquids
N2 Nitrogen
NPV Net Present Value
OBM Oil Based Mud
EL-12-219600
CAMAC Energy Inc.

OCM Operating Committee Meeting
ODT Oil down to
OPEX Operating Expenditure
OWC Oil Water Contact
p.a. Per annum
Pa Pascals (metric measurement of pressure)
P&A Plugged and Abandoned
PDP Proved Developed Producing
PI Productivity Index
PJ Petajoules (10
15
J oules)
PSDM Post Stack Depth Migration
psi Pounds per square inch
psia Pounds per square inch absolute
psig Pounds per square inch gauge
PUD Proved Undeveloped
PVT Pressure volume temperature
P10 10% Probability
P50 50% Probability
P90 90% Probability
Rf Recovery factor
RFT Repeat Formation Tester
RT Rotary Table
Rw Resistivity of water
SCAL Special core analysis
cf or scf Standard Cubic Feet
cfd or scfd Standard Cubic Feet per day
scf/ton Standard cubic foot per ton
SL Straight line (for depreciation)
so Oil Saturation
SPE Society of Petroleum Engineers
SPEE Society of Petroleum Evaluation Engineers
ss Subsea
stb Stock tank barrel
STOIIP Stock tank oil initially in place
sw Water Saturation
T Tonnes
TD Total Depth
Te Tonnes equivalent
THP Tubing Head Pressure
TJ Terajoules (10
12
J oules)
Tscf or Tcf Trillion standard cubic feet
TCM Technical Committee Meeting
TOC Total Organic Carbon
TOP Take or Pay
Tpd Tonnes per day
TVD True Vertical Depth
TVDss True Vertical Depth Subsea
USGS United States Geological Survey
US$ United States Dollar
VSP Vertical Seismic Profiling
WC Water Cut
WI Working Interest
WPC World Petroleum Council
WTI West Texas Intermediate
wt% Weight percent
1H05 First half (6 months) of 2005 (example of date)
2Q06 Second quarter (3 months) of 2006 (example of date)
2D Two dimensional
3D Three dimensional
4D Four dimensional
1P Proved Reserves
2P Proved plus Probable Reserves
3P Proved plus Probable plus Possible Reserves
% Percentage

Competent Persons Report For CAMAC Energy Inc v1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Competent Persons Report For CAMAC Energy Inc v1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Competent Persons Report For CAMAC Energy Inc v1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CAMAC Energy Inc. Copy No.

You might also like