Sinphuhorm Gas Field

RESERVES AND RESOURCES
CERTIFICATION
FOR THE SINPHUHORM GAS FIELD
AS OF 1ST JANUARY, 2012
Prepared by: Prepared for:
RPS Energy Consultants Limited Coastal Energy Company

#03-01 China House, 19 China Street, 3355 West Alabama Street,
Far East Square, Suite 500, Houston, Texas
Singapore 049561 77098
T: +65 6499 0060
F: +65 6499 0069
E: RPSSingapore@RPSGroup.com
W: www.rpsgroup.com
Report No: ECV1837.03

Version/Date: Rev0 / 29th March, 2012
Unit #03-01 China House, 19 China Street, Far East Square, Singapore 049561
T +65 6499 0060 F +65 6499 0069 E RPSSingapore@RPSGroup.com W www.rpsgroup.com
Mr. Jerry Moon, Project Ref: ECV1837.03

Coastal Energy Company,
3355 West Alabama Street,
Suite 500,
Houston,
Texas 77098
29th March, 2012
Dear Jerry,
EVALUATION OF COASTAL’S RESERVES IN THE SINPHUHORM GAS FIELD

LICENCES EU1 AND E5N, ONSHORE THAILAND
AS OF 1ST JANUARY, 2012
In response to your request, RPS Energy Consultants Limited (“RPS”) has completed an update of the
independent evaluation of the Reserves and value for the Sinphuhorm Field (“the Property”) in which
Coastal Energy Company (“Coastal”) has an interest. We have estimated Proved, Probable and
Possible Reserves as of 1st January, 2012. The Reserve estimates shown in this report are estimated in
accordance with requirements of the London Stock Exchange and Toronto Ventures Exchange (“LSE”
and “TSX”) including Canadian National Instrument 51-101 and the Reserve and Resource definitions
of the Canadian Oil and Gas Evaluation Handbook. RPS was mandated to undertake this work with the
signing of the Letter of Engagement (“LoE”) by Coastal on 29 th December, 2011.
The work was undertaken by a team of petroleum engineers, geoscientists and economists and is based
on data supplied by Coastal. The report has an effective date as of 1st January, 2012. Our approach
has been to review the production and cost data supplied by Coastal for reasonableness and then
independently estimate ranges of recoverable volumes. We have estimated the degree of uncertainty
inherent in the measurements and interpretation of the data and have calculated a range of recoverable
volumes, based on predicted field performance for the property and the contracted gas sales for
Sinphuhorm.
RPS has included in Probable (P2) Reserves and Possible (P3) Reserves volumes that can be reasonably
expected to be sold under the existing Gas Sales Agreement (“GSA”). The GSA limits the volumes
that may be monetized and allows for a Daily Contract Quantity (“DCQ”) of 108 MMscfd, subject to a
“Buyers Maximum DCQ Reduction Amount”. This DCQ Reduction allows the Sinphuhorm DCQ to
be reduced in the early years in order to allow for preferential supply to the GSA from the nearby
Nam Phong field. The exact Sinphuhorm DCQ reduction amounts will depend on the decline of the
Nam Phong field. The DCQ reduction, as estimated by the Nam Phong Field production forecast
provided by Coastal, has been used to estimate the Reserves for the Sinphuhorm property.
Gross and Net Working Interest Reserves attributable to Coastal are summarized in Table I.
We have taken the working interest that Coastal has in the Property as presented by Coastal and we
have not investigated nor do we make any warranty as to Coastal’s interest in the Property.
The report shows the Reserves in barrels of oil equivalent (“BOE”) for Sinphuhorm using a conversion
factor of 6.0 Mscf per BOE as per the SPE BOE calculation guidelines. Readers should note that BOE’s
may be misleading, particularly if used in isolation.
RPS Energy Limited (Singapore Branch): Registered in England No. 146554. Centurion Court, 85 Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxfordshire OX14 4RY, United Kingdom.
Branch registered in Singapore UEN: T07FC7076E
RESERVES AND RESOURCES CERTIFICATION
FOR THE SINPHUHORM GAS FIELD AS OF 1st JANUARY, 2012
Table 1
Summary Statement of Coastal’s Reserves for the Sinphuhorm Gas Field
as of 1st January, 2012
Remaining
Net Present Values (US$ Million)
Ultimate Reserves
Product Classification
Reserves Company Before Income Taxes After Income Taxes
Gross Net 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Non-Associated Gas (MMcf)

Proved Developed Producing 419,428 261,589 32,960 208 166 136 115 99 143 115 95 80 69
Proved Developed Non-Producing
Proven Undeveloped 82,101 82,101 10,345 66 49 37 29 23 43 32 24 19 15
Total Proved 501,529 343,690 43,305 274 215 173 144 122 186 147 119 99 84
Probable 612,926 612,926 89,750 679 303 148 79 45 444 198 97 52 30
Total Proved + Probable 1,114,455 956,616 133,055 953 517 321 222 167 630 345 216 151 114
Natural Gas Liquid (Mbbl)

Proved Developed Producing 2,143 1,344 169 13 10 9 7 6 9 7 6 5 4
Proven Undeveloped 422 422 53 4 3 2 2 1 3 2 2 1 1
Total Proved 2,565 1,765 222 17 14 11 9 8 12 9 8 6 5
Probable 3,148 3,148 461 46 21 10 6 3 30 14 7 4 2
Total Proved + Probable 5,713 4,913 683 63 34 21 15 11 42 23 14 10 8
Grand Total (MBOE)(1)

Total Proved 86,153 59,047 7,440 291 228 184 153 129 198 156 127 105 90
Probable 105,302 105,302 15,419 725 323 159 85 49 474 212 104 56 32
Total Proved + Probable 191,455 164,349 22,859 1016 552 343 237 178 671 368 231 161 122
Notes: (1) Using 6.0 Mscf/BOE
Net means net entitlement as per the Reserve and Resource definitions of the Canadian Oil and Gas
Evaluation Handbook. Thailand is a Tax and Royalty regime. Royalty is treated as tax and paid in cash, and
thus, attributable Net Entitlement Share is reported as Coastal’s working interest volumes including the
volumes associated with Royalty.
Note that the majority of the Undeveloped Reserves are at risk of being re-classified as Contingent
Resources at the end of 2012. This is due to the lack of demonstrated commerciality for the tighter,
unfractured and undolomitised portions of the structure. Please see report (Section 2.11.1) for details.
ECV1837.03 iii
Table 2
Summary Statement of Coastal’s Contingent Resources for the Sinphuhorm Gas
Field as of 1st January, 2012
Low Best High Chance of

1) 2) 2) 3)
Estimate Estimate Estimate Commercialization
Gross (100%) Licence Basis
Gas (MMscf) 137,922 593,874 4,504,520 70%

Oil and Condensate (Mbbl) 708 3,463 24,493 70%
Coastal Net Working Interest Basis
Net Working Interest 12.6% 14.0% 16.2% 70%
Gas (MMscf) 17,378 83,142 729,732 70%
Oil and Condensate (Mbbl) 89 485 3,968 70%
4)
Coastal Net Entitlement Interest Basis
Net Entitlement Interest 12.6% 14.0% 16.2%

Gas (MMscf) 17,378 83,142 729,732 70%
Oil and Condensate (Mbbl) 89 485 3,968 70%
Notes:
1) The Low Estimate relates to recoverable volumes from the currently producing wells that are not assigned to the Nam
Phong Power Plant GSA. Volumes remain un-contracted and are available for sale pending a GSA. If these volumes were
contracted to a GSA, then the contracted volumes would be re-classified as Proved Reserves. RPS has estimated that all
the volumes lie within the EU1/E5N production concessions.
2) The Best and High Estimates include all recoverable sales gas and condensate volumes that have not been classified
within the Reserves relating to the current GSA and the 15 year GSA extension periods.
3) The Chance of Commercialization relates to the chance of the reported volumes being commercialized in to a GSA. The
70% presented above would relate to the Low, Best and High Estimate volumes.
4) Coastal’s net entitlement is the same as their net working interest share as the royalty is paid in cash, rather than kind.
ECV1837.03 v
Table of Contents
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................1
2 Concessions EU1, E5N and L15/43 ............................................................................................5
2.1 Overview ....................................................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Petroleum System ........................................................................................................................................ 5
2.3 Database ........................................................................................................................................................ 6
2.4 Sinphuhorm Structure ................................................................................................................................. 6
2.5 Petrophysics .................................................................................................................................................. 7
2.6 Static Volumetric Estimates ........................................................................................................................ 7
2.6.1 Gas-Water Contact ....................................................................................................................................... 7
2.6.2 Indosinian-1 Unconformity Truncation ...................................................................................................... 8
2.6.3 Monte Carlo Probabilistic Simulation ........................................................................................................ 8
2.7 Reservoir Pressure and Temperature ...................................................................................................... 9
2.8 Production History ...................................................................................................................................... 9
2.9 Well Production Testing ............................................................................................................................. 9
2.10 Fluid Properties .......................................................................................................................................... 10
2.11 Material Balance Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 10
2.11.1 “Mapped” versus “Connected” GIIP Estimates.................................................................................... 12
2.12 Recoverable Hydrocarbons ...................................................................................................................... 12
2.12.1 Further Development Plans ...................................................................................................................... 13
2.12.2 EUR Volumes ............................................................................................................................................... 15
2.12.3 Resource Classification .............................................................................................................................. 15
2.12.4 Uncontracted Gas and Condensate Volumes ....................................................................................... 18
3 Commercial Evaluation ............................................................................................................27
3.1 Thai Concession Terms ............................................................................................................................ 27
3.2 Capital and Operating Costs .................................................................................................................... 27
3.3 Gas Contract and Prices ........................................................................................................................... 28
3.3.1 Sinphuhorm Contract Volumes ................................................................................................................ 28
3.3.2 Sinphuhorm Gas Price ............................................................................................................................... 28
3.3.3 Sinphuhorm Unitisation ............................................................................................................................. 28
4 Resource Statement .................................................................................................................31
5 NI 51-101 Reporting of Reserves .............................................................................................39
Appendices ..........................................................................................................................................45
Appendix I: Glossary of Technical Terms
Appendix II: Reserves and Resources Definitions and Guidelines
ECV1837.03 vii
Tables
Table 2-1 – Sinphuhorm Participants and their Working Interests ............................................................................. 5
Table 2-2 – Sinphuhorm GIIP (Bscf, 100% Basis)............................................................................................................ 8
Table 2-3 – PH-5 Welltest Summary .............................................................................................................................. 10
Table 2-4 – The Latest Reservoir Pressure Measurements ........................................................................................ 11
Table 2-5 – Effective “Connected” Estimates of GIIP, Sinphuhorm Gas Field (Bscf, 100% Basis) ........................ 12
Table 2-6 – Differences between the “Mapped” and “Connected” GIIP Estimates, Sinphuhorm Gas Field (Bscf,
100% Basis) ......................................................................................................................................................................... 12
Table 2-7 – Drilling Infill and Appraisal Wells and Wells Allocations for Reserves ............................................... 14
Table 2-8 – Sinphuhorm Gas Field EUR (Bscf, 100% Basis) ........................................................................................ 15
Table 2-9 – Sinphuhorm Gas Sales Agreement – DCQ and DCQ Reduction ........................................................ 16
Table 2-10 – Contracted and Uncontracted Gas and Condensate Volumes ........................................................... 17
Table 2-11 – Uncontracted Recoverable Sales Gas Volumes ..................................................................................... 18
Table 3-1 – Principal Commercial Terms ...................................................................................................................... 27
Table 3-2 – Forecast CAPEX and OPEX (US$ Million, 2012) for the Sinphuhorm Development ....................... 27
Table 3-3 – Estimated Unitised Share for the Sinphuhorm Gas Field ....................................................................... 29
Table 4-1 – Sinphuhorm Field Gross Reserves Estimate as of 1st January, 2012 ................................................... 31
Table 4-2 – Sinphuhorm Field Coastal’s Net Entitlement Reserves Estimate as of 1st January, 2012 ................ 31
Table 4-3 – Sinphuhorm Field Gross Sales Gas Reserves Reconciliation ................................................................. 32
Table 4-4 – Sinphuhorm Field Gross Condensate Reserves Reconciliation ............................................................ 32
Table 4-5 – Sinphuhorm Field Coastal Net Company Sales Gas Reserves Reconciliation (Forecast Prices and
Costs) .................................................................................................................................................................................. 33
Table 4-6 – Sinphuhorm Field Coastal Net Company Condensate Reserves Reconciliation (Forecast Prices
and Costs) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 33
Table 5-1 – Sinphuhorm Field Summary of the Evaluation of the Petroleum Reserves as of 1st January, 2012 39
Table 5-2 – Total Future Net Revenue Undiscounted Forecast Prices and Costs as of 1st January, 2012 ........ 40
Table 5-3 – Sinphuhorm Field Volumetric Reserves Estimates Reservoir Data ...................................................... 40
Table 5-4 – Estimates of Proved Reserves and Net Present Values for the Sinphuhorm Field (as of 1st January,
2012) .................................................................................................................................................................................... 41
Table 5-5 – Estimates of Proved Plus Probable Reserves and Net Present Values for the Sinphuhorm Field (as
of 1st January, 2012) ......................................................................................................................................................... 42
Table 5-6 – Sinphuhorm Field Remaining Gas Reserves Reconciliation, 100% Basis .............................................. 43
Table 5-7 – Sinphuhorm Field Remaining Condensate Reserves Reconciliation, 100% Basis ............................... 43
Table 5-8 – Sinphuhorm Field Remaining Gas Reserves Reconciliation, Coastal’s Net Entitlement ................... 44
Table 5-9 – Sinphuhorm Field Remaining Condensate Reserves Reconciliation, Coastal’s Net Entitlement ..... 44
ECV1837.03 viii
Figures
Figure 1-1 – Location of Coastal’s Onshore Thailand Concession ............................................................................. 3
Figure 2-1 – Location of the Sinphuhorm Gas Field and Concession L15/43 .......................................................... 19
Figure 2-2 – Onshore Thailand Stratigraphic Column ................................................................................................. 20
Figure 2-3 – Sinphuhorm Gas Field Top Structure Map (RPS) ................................................................................... 21
Figure 2-4 – Sinphuhorm Gas Field Reservoir Pressure ............................................................................................. 22
Figure 2-5 – Sinphuhorm Gas Field Production History ............................................................................................. 23
Figure 2-6 – Sinphuhorm Gas Field FWHPs .................................................................................................................. 24
Figure 2-7 – Sinphuhorm Gas Field P/Z GIIP Estimate (RPS) ..................................................................................... 25
Figure 2-8 – Sinphuhorm Gas Field P/Z GIIP Estimates (Operator) ......................................................................... 26
Figure 4-1 – Sinphuhorm Gas Field Gas Production Profile ....................................................................................... 35
Figure 4-2 – Sinphuhorm Gas Field Condensate Production Profile......................................................................... 36
Figure 4-3 – Sinphuhorm Gas Field Gas Production Forecast ................................................................................... 37
Figure 4-4 – Sinphuhorm Gas Field Gas Production Forecast ................................................................................... 38
ECV1837.03 ix
1 Introduction
Coastal, through its 36.1% interest in APICO LLC’s (“APICO”) share, participates in two
production licenses; EU1 and E5N (at 12.6% Working Interest) and two concessions, currently in
the exploration phase (L27/43 and L15/43 at 36.1% Working Interest). Coastal has engaged RPS
Energy Consultants Limited (“RPS”) to perform a Reserves and Resources Update for the
Sinphuhorm Gas Field. This evaluation covers the hydrocarbon Reserves and Contingent
Resources associated with Coastal’s interest in the Sinphuhorm Gas Field (the “Asset”, Figure
1-1).
The Reserves Evaluation of the Asset followed the Scope of Work as agreed by Coastal and RPS:
 Sinphuhorm Gas Field Review
1. Geological Review.
2. Production Data Review.
3. Gas Sales Agreement and Production/Cashflow Forecasting.
4. Further Field Development Review.
5. Estimation of the Proved (“1P”), Proved plus Probable (“2P”), Proved plus
Probable plus Possible (“3P”) Reserves and the Contingent Resources.
6. Issue of the final Reserves and Resources Update Report; this report.
The deliverable is a Formal Reserves Update Report Letter for the Asset. It presents our opinions
on whether the existing studies, models and estimates are reasonable and appropriate. In addition
to documenting the methodology used for RPS’s independent analyses and checks, we also highlight
any red flags or items of material interest to the Lenders.
The evaluation presented in this report reflects our informed judgment, based on accepted
standards of professional investigation, but is subject to generally recognized uncertainties
associated with the interpretation of geological, geophysical and engineering data. The evaluation
has been conducted within our understanding of petroleum legislation, taxation and other
regulations that currently apply to these interests. However, RPS is not in a position to attest to
the property title, financial interest relationships or encumbrances related to the property. Our
estimates of Reserves and Resources are based on data provided by Coastal. We have accepted,
without independent verification, the accuracy and completeness of this data.
The report represents RPS’s best professional judgment and should not be considered a guarantee
or prediction of results. It should be understood that any evaluation, particularly one involving
future performance and development activities may be subject to significant variations over short
periods of time as new information becomes available. This report relates specifically and solely to
the subject Property and is conditional upon various assumptions that are described herein. This
report must, therefore, be read in its entirety. This report was provided for the sole use of
Coastal and their corporate advisors on a fee basis.
The Reserve estimates shown in this report are estimated and presented in accordance with
requirements of the London Stock Exchange and Toronto Ventures Exchange (“LSE” and “TSX”)
including Canadian National Instrument 51-101 and the Reserve and Resource definitions of the
Canadian Oil and Gas Evaluation Handbook. Further, RPS has been guided by the March 2007
SPE/WPC/AAPG/SPEE Petroleum Resources Management System (“PRMS”) in assessing the
volumes.
ECV1837.03 1
RPS has previously reviewed the Resources for this Asset for Coastal, Salamander and APICO in
the reports:
 “Salamander Reserves Statement for the Sinphuhorm Field” dated 20th October, 2010,
evaluating the Reserves as of 1st July, 2010 (Project ECV1665).
 “Coastal Energy Due Diligence for the Sinphuhorm Field” dated 29th October, 2010,
evaluating the Reserves and Contingent Resources as of 1st July, 2010 (Project
ECV1658).
 “APICO LLC Resource Statement for the Sinphuhorm Gas Field” dated 24th
November, 2010, evaluating the Resources as of 1st July, 2010 (Project ECV1705).
 “Salamander Reserves Statement for the Sinphuhorm Field” dated 19th January, 2011,
evaluating the Reserves as of 1st January, 2011 (Project ECV1666).
 “Coastal Energy Sinphuhorm Gas Field Reserves Update” dated 3rd March, 2011,
evaluating the Reserves and Contingent Resources as of 1st January, 2011 (Project
ECV1725).
 “Evaluation of APICO LLC’s Reserves in the Sinphuhorm Gas Field, Licences EUI and
E5N, Onshore Thailand” dated 14th June, 2011, evaluating the reserves as of 1st
January, 2011 (Project ECV1738).
 “Salamander Reserves Statement for the Sinphuhorm Field” dated 23rd September,
2011, evaluating the Reserves as of 1st July, 2011 (Project ECV1764).
ECV1837.03 2
North Phu Horm
L15/43
EU1
Sinphuhor
Sinphuhorm
m EU1
E5N
L15/43
E5N
L27/43
Nam Phong
Scale
0 (km) 25
Map supplied by APICO Sinphuhorm Gas Field (Concessions EU1, E5N)

Current Coastal Concession L15/43 outline
Original Coastal Concession L15/43 outline
Current Coastal Concession L27/42 outline
Figure 1-1 – Location of Coastal’s Onshore Thailand Concessions
ECV1837.03 rpsgroup.com
2 Concessions EU1, E5N and L15/43

2.1 Overview
Coastal, through its 12.6% interest in APICO’s share, participates in two production licenses; EU1
and E5N and three concessions, currently in the exploration phase (L27/43 at 36.1%, L13/48 at
21.7% and L15/43 at 36.1% Working Interest). These are located in the Khorat Plateau, onshore
Thailand and are shown in Figure 1-1.
The Sinphuhorm Gas Field, which has historically been referred to as the Phu Horm Field, was
discovered by Esso in 1983 with the Sinphuhorm-1 well. The Thai authorities mandated the change
of name from Phu Horm to Sinphuhorm. The structure straddles the two production licenses of
EU1 and E5N, and appears to extend southwards into the Block L15/43 (Figure 2-1).
The gas field has been on production since November 2006 and is subject to ongoing delineation
and development activities. APICO own a 35% non-operated working interest in the EU1 and E5N
concessions. APICO owns 100% of the L15/43 concession and is Operator. The field production
licence expires on the 19th May, 2034. The Sinphuhorm production license extends until 19th May,
2034. As of 1st January, 2012, the participants of the concession were as presented in Table 2-1:
Table 2-1 – Sinphuhorm Participants and their Working Interests
EU1 and E5N L15/43, L27/43

Participants
(%) (%)
Hess Thailand 35.0* -
APICO LLC 35.0 100.0*
(of which Coastal) (12.635) (36.1)
PTT E&P 20.0 -
ExxonMobil 10.0 -
*) denotes Operator of the concession
2.2 Petroleum System
The Khorat Plateau covers an area of about 170,000 km2. It is rimmed on its western and southern
margins by an escarpment of mostly steeply dipping sediments that form cuestas rising from 600-
1,000 m above sea level. The sedimentary sequence consists of an initial rift sequence of
Carboniferous to Triassic age sediments, and a “sag” sequence of Late Triassic to Cretaceous age
sediments. The two sequences are separated by a regional unconformity, the Indosinian-1
Unconformity, which represents the main collision of Indochina with its neighbours.
The principal petroleum system is within the Permo-Triassic and underlying Carboniferous (Figure
2-2). The Mid Permian Pha Nok Khao Formation platform limestones and dolomites are the
principal reservoirs. These are immediately below, and are truncated by, the major Indosinian-1
Unconformity. The proven hydrocarbon systems within Permian carbonates are:
 Fractured massive carbonates contained within thrust-related structures, as in the
Sinphuhorm Gas Field.
 Partially dolomitised carbonates, as in the Sinphuhorm Gas Field.
ECV1837.03 5
Secondary reservoirs are the Early Permian, Si That Formation, and the Triassic aged, Huai Hin Lat
Formation, which is a succession of interbedded sands and shales lying above the Indosinian-1
Unconformity.
Triassic gas-prone lacustrine shales and coals, buried within half-grabens, and matured during the
Cretaceous, are the postulated source rocks. Permian marine shales may be secondary source
rocks.
2.3 Database
The Coastal concessions in the Khorat Basin are covered by seismic data of several vintages dating
back to 1979. New seismic was acquired in 2005 to the south of the Sinphuhorm, as well as over
discovery areas to the east. The central crestal portion of the Sinphuhorm Gas Field has been
delineated with the drilling of eight wells (PH-1 to -7 and PH-10). Well PH-10 has been on
production since December 2007. The South PH-1 well has been drilled in the northern portion of
Concession L15/43, indicating that the closure extends to the south. However, flow test rates
were disappointing in that well and PH-6, located to the central northern part of the field. Both of
these wells are still being evaluated for future stimulation operations. The reservoir at Sinphuhorm
-7 on the western flank of the field was tight and no flow was achieved during testing.
RPS reviewed an independent third party petrophysical study that had been completed on these
logs for another participant within the field development. An audit by RPS found these log
evaluations to be reasonable and appropriate. Production and well test data were provided for all
producing and tested Sinphuhorm wells.
2.4 Sinphuhorm Structure
RPS has completed an independent interpretation of the Sinphuhorm during a previous study for
one of APICO’s part-owners (Salamander). It is evident that two key horizons form the closure
across the majority of the Sinphuhorm structure (see the stratigraphic column in Figure 2-2 and
the top structure map in Figure 2-3).
The lower surface is formed by the top of the Si That Formation. This complex surface dips to the
SE and forms a conformable base to the overlying Pha Nok Khao Formation. However, the Si
That/Pha Nok Khao bedding plane also forms the décollement surface for a low angle thrust that
trends NE-SW. The thrust plane contains small conjugate thrust faults that are interpreted to have
created fracturing within the Pha Nok Khao Formation, enhancing porosity and permeability locally.
The interpretation of the Si That Formation is complicated by the presence of these smaller
conjugate thrusts plus larger sub-trusts to the west of the structure. Nevertheless, a Best Estimate
interpretation has been audited by RPS and is deemed sufficient to adequately represent the base of
the reservoir sequence.
The upper surface is, for the most part, formed by the Indosinian-1 Unconformity that has eroded
the top of the SE dipping Pha Nok Khao reservoir sequence and the older Si That Formation. The
unconformity shows a strong change in seismic character to the underlying Pha Nok Khao and Si
That Formations. Therefore, a robust time interpretation is achieved for this event. As the Pha
Nok Khao Formation dips to the SE, the combined Indosinian-I and Pha Nok Khao horizons diverge
in the far eastern portion of the interpretation. This is, however, outside the closure of the
Sinphuhorm structure. Thus, the Indosinian-I Unconformity can be interpreted as forming the top
reservoir equivalent surface for the Sinphuhorm Gas Field.
Sinphuhorm straddles the EU1 and E5N blocks, and probably extends south into Block L15/43. The
drilling of well South PH-1 shows that gas is present in the southern block. Unfortunately, the
rock quality was poor, which has affected the deliverability of the well. This well is currently
ECV1837.03 6
suspended pending evaluation of fracture stimulation potential. The presence of gas justifies the
extension of the mapped field closure into Block L15/43.
2.5 Petrophysics
The reservoir consists of fractured tight platform limestones and dolomites of the Mid Permian Pha
Nok Khao Formation. The pre-Triassic section below the Indosinian-1 Unconformity is structurally
complex and thrusted. Where thrusting has occurred, the porosity and permeability of the
reservoir is interpreted to have been increased by fracturing. Thus, essentially, a dual porosity
system has been established in the reservoir rock. The opposite is noted at the PH-7 and South
PH-1 well locations, which have not encountered significant sections of fractured reservoir and,
thus have low gas deliverability.
RPS has reviewed the third party evaluation of the Sinphuhorm wells conducted on behalf of
another field development participant and notes that log analyses have adequately assessed the rock
parameters of the limestone/dolomite matrix. Although the data sampling within the wells was not
optimal, best efforts have been made in assessing the rock parameters. Notably, the seemingly
poorer quality wells have the most complete datasets, which may skew the formation averages
towards the low side. In addition to the reservoir rock matrix, RPS has reviewed published
material of fractured reservoirs to estimate a range of rock parameters (porosity and water
saturation) for the fractured intervals of the Pha Nok Khao Formation.
2.6 Static Volumetric Estimates
The static volumetric estimate of GIIP have been based around uncertainties associated the rock
properties and the Gross Rock Volume (“GRV”). The GRV provides the largest uncertainty as
there remain wide ranges in the possible values for the:
i) the estimated gas-Water Contact (“GWC”) defining the vertical limit of the hydrocarbon-
bearing reservoir and
ii) the north-westerly extent of the Pha Nok Khao Formation, which, together with the GWC
place a large uncertainty in the areal extent of the hydrocarbon closure.
These are discussed below:
2.6.1 Gas-Water Contact

A GWC has not been penetrated by any of the nine wells drilled on the Sinphuhorm structure.
The range of possible contacts is vertically dispersed (431 m) and GRV estimates have been based
on the following assumptions:
 Low Case: the lowest tested gas in PH-1 at 2,156 mTVDSS.
 Best Case: lowest interpreted gas in PH-2 DST#3 interval at 2,279 mTVDSS.
 High Case: pressure data analysis of the gas and water columns suggesting a contact at 2,587
mTVDSS.
These three water levels have been used to form the Low, Best and High estimates for the extent
of the field, based on mapping. RPS notes, however, that there is the distinct possibility that there
are separate pressure gas containers (“tanks”) across the mapped closures of the Sinphuhorm Gas
Field and that not all of the tanks have been defined/penetrated to date.
ECV1837.03 7
2.6.2 Indosinian-1 Unconformity Truncation

An additional GRV uncertainty relates to placement of the intersection of the thrusted south-
easterly dipping top Si That Formation (base of reservoir) and the Indosinian I Unconformity (top
reservoir). This forms a linear structural-stratigraphic closure of the field along its western flank.
The intersection of these two surfaces is relatively well defined along the SW portion as strong
amplitude impedance events. However, the same is not true for the region to the NW and North
of PH-1, where the intersection is not very well defined on the seismic, due to tuning and the low
resolution of the seismic data.
RPS has previously interpreted that the Top Indosinian-I Unconformity time interpretation forms a
robust representation of the top reservoir. The base pick, marked by the Si That Formation, has
considerably more interpretation uncertainty, due to conjugate thrusting and deformation. RPS
previously applied a time to depth conversion using a polynomial function, based on the check-shot
surveys of wells PH-1 and PH-2. Other wells did not have time-depth curves loaded in the
database. Previously, RPS noted that misties between the time pick and the stratigraphic well depth
were considerable in some wells, requiring broad correction before adjusted top and base surfaces
could be used in volumetric calculations. The corrected grids push the structure down in the area
of wells PH-3 and PH-10.
2.6.3 Monte Carlo Probabilistic Simulation

RPS has created a Monte Carlo probabilistic simulation in the REP5™ software, applying a dual
porosity (matrix and fracture) system and associated water saturations. The inputs to the Monte
Carlo analysis are presented in Table 2-2. The probabilistic simulation was run through 100,000
iterations and the P90, P50, P10 values were extracted.
Table 2-2 – Sinphuhorm GIIP (Bscf, 100% Basis)
Monte Carlo Parameter Inputs Low Input Mid Input High Input
2
Gross Rock Volume (km .m) 7.53 17.05 54.91
2
Area (km ) 57 92 165
Gas-water Contact (m TVDSS) -2,156 -2,279 -2,587
Net-to-Gross (%) 100 100 100
Matrix Porosity (%) 1.5 2.5 3.0
Matrix Water Saturation (%) 60.0 42.5 35.0
Fracture Porosity (%) 0.22 0.67 2.00
Fracture Water Saturation (%) 20 15 10
Gas Expansion Factor (scf/rcf) 207 208 209
Monte Carlo Outputs P90 P50 P10
GIIP (Bscf) 1,643 3,410 6,833
ECV1837.03 8
2.7 Reservoir Pressure and Temperature
Production and reservoir pressure data were supplied by the field Operator to Coastal. Reservoir
pressures have been measured from wells PH-3ST, -4, -5 and -10ST using downhole gauges. Other
reservoir pressures have been derived from surface measurements (from wells PH-4 and PH-5).
Pressure and production data have demonstrated that there are (at least) two pressure separate
compartments (“tanks”) within the mapped closure. Further, and as demonstrated in this section,
RPS has noted a stark difference between the volumetric estimation of the GIIP (Section 2.6) and
that of the material balance volumetric modeling based on production and reservoir pressure
(Section 2.11). The material balance analysis suggests that the producing wells are unlikely to be
communicating with the full mapped reservoir volume. Therefore, RPS has categorised the GIIP
volumes as either “Mapped” (via structural closure) or “Connected” (via pressure communication
in the wellbores).
The “Connected” GIIP was estimated utilizing the dynamic data with the material balance method
applied for South and Central areas, and assumes volumetric depletion. The Central area consists
of wells PH-4 and PH-10ST, whereas the South area comprises wells PH-3 and PH-5. Interference
pressure data has confirmed pressure communication between wells PH-4 and PH-10ST in Central
area and between wells PH-3 and PH-5 in South areas1. Therefore, for this evaluation, a two tank
material balance model is used. Figure 2-4 depicts the reservoir pressures for these two areas.
2.8 Production History
Gas and condensate production history for Sinphuhorm up to and including 31st December, 2011 is
presented in Figure 2-5.
2.9 Well Production Testing
The well test history for the Sinphuhorm Gas Field is summarized below:
Phu Horm-3 was spudded on the 10th June, 2002 and temporarily suspended on 24th August, 2002
due to a gas kick. The well was re-entered on the 18th March, 2003 and the reservoir section was
drilled using underbalanced drilling techniques to reach a total depth of 2695 mMDBRT (metres
measured depth below rotary table). A buildup test over 300 hours was run, preceded by a flow
period of about equal duration in October 2003. The maximum gas rate during DST-1 was 44.8
MMscf/d at 252 psi drawdown.
Phu Horm-4 was spudded on the 9th June, 2004. The reservoir section was drilled underbalanced
and reached a total depth of 2621 mMDBRT. A buildup test lasting about 600 hours was run,
preceded by a flow of period of 170 hours in November 2004. The average gas rate during the
extended well test is 39.0 MMscf/d at 110 psi drawdown.
Phu Horm-5 was drilled during July-September 2004. The reservoir section was drilled
underbalanced with the top of reservoir at 2477 mMDRT to a total depth of 2921 mMDRT. A
buildup test lasting about 180 hours was run, preceded by a modified-isochronal test to obtain well
deliverability during 17-27 July 2007. The average gas rates are provided in Table 2-3.
1 Sinphuhorm Field Reserves Assessment Methodology by HESS Oil & Gas (Thailand) Limited, dated 31st December, 2008.
ECV1837.03 9
Table 2-3 – PH-5 Welltest Summary
Flow Average Gas Rate Condensate-Gas Ratio Water-Gas Ratio Drawdown

Number (MMscf/d) (stb/MMscf) (stb/MMscf) (psi)
1 10.9 5.2 0.6 61
2 21.2 5.3 0.7 232
3 33.2 5.3 1.5 496
Phu Horm-7 was spudded on the 27th September, 2006. The reservoir section was drilled under-
balanced with no gas shows. PH-7 was suspended and the rig was released on 9th May, 2007.
Phu Horm-6 was drilled in a batch mode with the Phu Horm-7, and was spudded on the 12th
January, 2007. On 15th April, 2007, the well was suspended after extensive flow testing. The gas
flow rates were deemed sub-commercial for a tie-in at the time. The average sustained flow rate
on test was 1.5 MMscf/day; however, during under-balanced drilling of the Pha Nok Khao
Formation the well produced gas at rates up to 4 MMscf/day. It appears that some formation
damage may have occurred when the well was killed during the later stages of the drilling
operation. The well may be re-entered and stimulated at a later date; and all forecasts assume that,
after stimulation, this well will achieve a similar inflow capacity as that currently seen from Phu
Horm-10.
Phu Horm-10 was spudded on the 27th July, 2007. The well was sidetracked due to a stuck
bottom-hole assembly. The main flow test (post-acidization) was conducted from 16th to 19th
September, 2007 with an average flow rate of 9.9 MMscf/d at WHP of 1825 psi. SIWHP at the end
of the test was 2773 psi. The Phu Horm-10 well was brought on stream as a production well in the
first quarter of 2008 and produced at an average rate of 10 MMscf/d. There are indications of
mechanical problems with the completion in this well and a re-entry is currently being planned.
The South Phu Horm–1 well was spudded on 18th February, 2008 and reached a total depth of
2660 mMDBRT. This well also tested gas at sub-commercial rates. The well was suspended
pending evaluation of the stimulation potential.
2.10 Fluid Properties
Sinphuhorm gas is dry, with a methane content of 96 mole percent and a pentane plus (C5+)
content of less than one mole percent.
Surface gas, liquid and water samples were collected from the PH-3, -4, and -5 wells during multi-
rate tests. Further Pressure Volume Temperature (“PVT”) analyses were performed on wells PH-3
and -4. These tests show carbon dioxide up to 0.5 mole percent and very minimal traces of
hydrogen sulphide (0.001%). Based on production data, the average Condensate Gas Ratio
(“CGR”) is approximately 5.1 stb/MMscf.
2.11 Material Balance Analysis
Sufficient data is available to assess the range of in-place hydrocarbons within the Sinphuhorm Gas
Field. This has been completed using geological mapping (Section 2.6) but can also be achieved by
assessing the material balance of the field based on the current wells and pressure analyses.
An interpretation of the gas volumes that are in effective communication with the currently
producing wells (PH-3, -4, -5 and 10ST) has been conducted. Material Balance (“P/Z”) methods
were used to estimate the volume of “Connected” GIIP for individual tanks, as illustrated in Figure
2-8. Two separate tanks were modeled in MBalTM. Each tank has two wells;
ECV1837.03 10
 PH-4 and -10ST in the Central area, and;

 PH-3 and -5 in the Southern area.
Three possibilities were considered in the material balance modeling:
 volumetric depletion,
 water drive, and
 compartmentalization.
Although a pressure match could be achieved by assuming a weak aquifer, aquifer influx is
discounted as less probable as only a limited amount of relatively early production data is available.
As of 31st December 2011, approximately 19% of the Best Estimate GIIP volume has been
produced. Moreover, the mature, adjacent field of Nam Phong has demonstrated a volumetric
depletion.
RPS has also assessed additional “estimated” reservoir pressures from the PH-3 and PH-5 for the
South Area and PH-4 for the Central Area. These pressures were estimated from flowing well
head pressures (“FWHPs”) (Figure 2-6) and are therefore only indicative of the actual reservoir
pressure.
The last downhole pressure measurements were obtained during the static gradient survey is
shown in Table 2-4.
Table 2-4 – The Latest Reservoir Pressure Measurements
Well Date Pressure (psia) Area Measurement

th
PH-3 17 June, 2011 3,168 South Gradient Survey
PH-4 18th September, 2011 2,878 Central Gradient Survey
th
PH-5 25 September, 2011 3,009 South Gradient Survey
PH-1 20th September, 2011 3,538 North Gradient Survey
RPS had generated the P/Z plots (Figure 2-7) for South and Central Areas separately using all the
available pressure data. The GIIP distribution by “tank” is provided in Table 2-5, with the range of
Low, Best and High Estimates based on the uncertainty associated with plotting the straight line
through the data points. These volumes are the classified as “Connected” GIIPs. The Operator’s
Best Estimate GIIP from the P/Z plot (Figure 2-8) assuming “Connected Area” as one tank is 769
Bscf, which is equal to the average of RPS’s Low Estimate and Best Estimate GIIPs.
Compartmentalization remains a possibility in the Central area but more pressure data are
required to support this model. As the P/Z plot shows a straight line relationship (Figure 2-7),
RPS has concluded that a volumetric depletion mechanism is most likely for the Sinphuhorm Gas
Field based on the available data.
ECV1837.03 11
Table 2-5 – Effective “Connected” Estimates of GIIP, Sinphuhorm Gas Field (Bscf, 100% Basis)
Gas Initially In-Place (Bscf)

Area
Low Best High
Central Area (PH-4 and PH-10ST) 327.8 379.5 446.3
South Area (PH-3 and PH-5) 386.1 444.5 510.9
Total 713.9 824.0 957.1
If the above volumes are back-interpolated using the average rock and engineering input parameters
from the “Mapped” GIIP assessment, is discovered that the “tanks” cover approximate areas of 10-
9 to 12 km2 each, which is significantly less that the Mapped Low Estimate GIIP area of 57 km2 and
the Best Estimate GIIP area of 92 km2 (see Table 2-2).
A pressure gradient survey in PH-1 (about 4.3 km north of PH-10ST) conducted on 30th October,
2010 indicates a pressure depletion of 89 psi (2.5%) from the virgin reservoir pressure of 3680 psia
taken in December 1984. The recent pressure gradient survey was conducted on 20th September,
2011 indicates a pressure depletion of 141 psi (3.8%). The PH-1 Shut-in Tubing Head Pressure
monitoring indicating a pressure drop of 15 psi from 28th April, 2011 to 8th September, 2011.
2.11.1 “Mapped” versus “Connected” GIIP Estimates

The “Mapped” GIIP volume estimates are significantly larger than those that have been estimated
using the material balance “Connected” tank assessment. This indicates that the Sinphuhorm Gas
Field, as currently developed is only tapping a portion of the “Mapped” field, which may cover a
significantly larger area. However, and as evidenced from the five non-producing wells/areas in the
field, there may be several unidentified and un-penetrated ”tanks” that are not in communication.
Wells outside the current Central and Southern area “tanks” have encountered generally tight
reservoir that may, or may not, be conducive to production through stimulation (i.e. acidisation,
fraccing etc). Presently, RPS has defined gas hosted in areas within the “Mapped” closure but not
within the “Connected” “tanks” as the “Unconnected” volumes (Table 2-6).
Table 2-6 – Differences between the “Mapped” and “Connected” GIIP Estimates,
Sinphuhorm Gas Field (Bscf, 100% Basis)
Gas Initially In-Place (Bscf)

Low Best High
“Mapped” GIIP (Table 2-2) 1,643 3,410 6,833
“Connected” GIIP (Table 2-5) 714 824 957
Difference (“Unconnected”) 929 2,586 5,876
2.12 Recoverable Hydrocarbons
The difference between the volumetric estimates and the material balance modeling suggests that
the producing wells may not be communicating with the full reservoir volume. The Best Estimates
ECV1837.03 12
of “Connected” GIIP are approximately a quarter of the volume of the Best Estimate “Mapped’
GIIP.
The field is most likely divided into two or more areas that are separated by a large fault or zones
of tight/un-fractured Pha Nok Khao Formation. This compartmentalisation is supported by
pressure data that suggests the two areas are not in significant pressure communication.
2.12.1 Further Development Plans

The Operator has detailed in its five-year work plan and budget (“WP&B”) that there will be four
wells drilled within the Sinphuhorm structure. No maps detailing the location for these wells
planned in 2013 have been provided to RPS. For their location description it is noted that one well
will be sited in the southern portion of the field, a further in the central portion and two additional
wells in the Northern sector. It is unknown whether the northern wells will be targeting a new
“tank”, testing the “Unconnected” area, or drilling the northern portion of the Central “tank”.
 Well PH-8 in the Northern area.
 Well PH-9 in the Northern area.
 Well PH-11 in the Southern area - possibly part of the Southern “tank” (PH-5 / PH-3) –
effectively increasing the rate of recovery of hydrocarbons with marginal incremental
volume.
 Well PH-12 in the Central area - possibly part of the Central “tank” (PH-10ST / PH-4) –
effectively increasing the rate of recovery of hydrocarbons with marginal incremental
volume.
In addition to drilling new wells, the Operator has presented plans to conduct the following
appraisal in 2013:
 Well PH-6 in the Northwestern area – a workover or sidetrack on the tight PNK
formation that may be connected to the Central area “tank”.
 Well PH-10ST in the Central “tank” – a workover of this well.
“Connected” Area Development

The “Connected” gas resources have been estimated using static material balance P/Z modeling
methods, based on production and pressure data supplied by Coastal and Salamander. The
“Connected” GIIP, as previously mentioned, was derived from material balance calculations shown
in Figure 2-8 with resulting GIIP values presented in Table 2-5. The EUR has been updated
following plans by the Operator to drill additional wells. RPS has assigned two wells to the Low
Estimate (the Southern and Central area wells) and four additional wells to the Best and High
Estimates.
Besides the currently producing wells, the gas recovery from the planned wells is included in
various reserve estimates as in Table 2-7. The Low Estimate case consists of two infill wells only
and the Best and High Estimates cases consist of two infill wells plus two appraisal wells. These
wells have been included in the material balance model. The wells inflow performance was
assumed to be average of the currently producing wells.
ECV1837.03 13
Table 2-7 – Drilling Infill and Appraisal Wells and Wells Allocations for Reserves
Schedule Drilling Area Low Best High

Estimate Estimate Estimate
Wells Wells Wells
Q1 – 2013 North of Central Area - PH-8 PH-8
Q2 – 2013 North of Central Area - PH-9 PH-9
Q3 – 2013 South PH-11 PH-11 PH-11
Q4 – 2013 Central PH-12 PH-12 PH-12
Total Wells 2 4 4
“Unconnected” Area Development

It is likely that significantly more wells would be required to access the “Mapped” volumes that lie
outside the “Connected” tanks (i.e. the presently “Unconnected” volumes). The Operator has
presented that there are no firm development plans to develop the tight, unfractured,
undolomitised limestones.
In late 2007, RPS devised a conceptual plan of development for the “Unconnected” volumes based
upon analogue well spacing noted in the neighbouring Nam Phong field (approximately one well
every 4.0 km2) and other tight gas analogue fields (approximately one well every 2.5 km2).
Although not adopted by the Operator or Joint Venture partners, the volumes associated with that
development plan were classified as Reserves as the Operator had intended to appraise the tighter
sections of the PNK limestone. However, the last appraisal of the tighter gas in the production
concessions (EU1/E5N) resulted in a failed well. That well, PH-7, was spudded in late 2007 and
suspended in May 2008. Further appraisal has not occurred over the past 4 years and there are no
definitive plans to undertake the tight gas development in the Operator’s five-year WP&B.
The SPE document “Guidelines for Application of the Petroleum Resource Management System”
published in November 2011 (footnote: 2) state that a reasonable timeframe may be given for the
development of Reserves; placing that period at 5 years (section 2.1.2 of the Guidelines). That five
year time marker will be reached by the end of 2012 and, as per the Guidelines, the Operator must
now demonstrate a firm intention to proceed with development based upon all of the following
criteria:
 Evidence to support a reasonable timetable for development.
 A reasonable assessment of the future economics of such development projects meeting
defined investment and operating criteria.
 A reasonable expectation that there will be a market for all or at least the expected sales
quantities of production required to justify development.
 Evidence that the necessary production and transportation facilities are available or can be
made available.
 Evidence that legal, contractual, environmental and other social and economic concerns
will allow for the actual implementation of the recovery project being evaluated.
 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
2 SPE, AAPG, WPC, SPEE, SEG, November 2011: Guidelines for Application of the Petroleum Resources Management System, pp221.
ECV1837.03 14
external approvals will be forthcoming, and there is evidence of firm intention to proceed
with development within a reasonable time frame.
 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.
RPS has maintained a portion of the currently defined “Unconnected” volumes as Reserves but
notes that these will be re-classified as Contingent Resources unless all of the commercial
determination requirements stated above are demonstrated by the end of 2012.
2.12.2 EUR Volumes

We have not included any of the “Unconnected” volumes within the Low Estimate EUR for the
Sinphuhorm Field, such that Proved Reserves are only derived from the “Connected” volume
“tanks”. The Best and High Estimate EURs are derived on analogue well spacing and a 15 year
extension to the Gas Sales Agreement.
The Sinphuhorm EUR volumes are presented in Table 2-8:
Table 2-8 – Sinphuhorm Gas Field EUR (Bscf, 100% Basis)
Gas Volumes
Low Best High
Estimate Estimate Estimate
“Connected” GIIP, Bscf (Table 2-6) 714 824 957
“Unconnected” GIIP, Bscf (Table 2-6) 1) 0 2,586 5,876
TOTAL GIIP, Bscf 714 3,410 6,833
Overall Recovery Factor, % (back interpolated) 90% 50% 83%
Total Wellhead Gas EUR, Bscf 2) 643 1,719 5,657
Total Sales Gas EUR, Bscf 3) 638 1,707 5,618
Note :
1) No development of the “Unconnected” volumes for the Low Estimate.
2) Best and High Estimates assume full production to 2050 (effective ultimate EUR).
3) After applying shrinkage of 0.7% due to fuel and flare.
2.12.3 Resource Classification

Not all of the above EUR volumes can be classified as Reserves. A Gas Sales Agreement (“GSA”)
limits the volumes that may be monetized. This GSA allows for a Daily Contract Quantity
(“DCQ”) of 108 MMscf/d, subject to a “Buyers Maximum DCQ Reduction Amount”. The DCQ
Reduction allows the Sinphuhorm DCQ to be reduced in the early years in order to allow for
preferential supply to the GSA from the Nam Phong field. The GSA is a 15 year contract that
supplies gas to the Nam Phong Power Plant and expires on the 28th November, 2021.
ECV1837.03 15
The exact Sinphuhorm DCQ reduction amounts will depend on the decline of the Nam Phong field.
The DCQ reduction, as currently provided by Coastal and Salamander, is therefore as set out in
the profile in Table 2-9 but will be dependent on the effective Nam Phong producing rates.
Table 2-9 – Sinphuhorm Gas Sales Agreement – DCQ and DCQ Reduction
DCQ Reduction 2
Contract DCQ Sinphuhorm
Period Nam Phong 1
Year (MMscf/d) (MMscf/d)
(MMscf/d)
1 1/10/2006 – 30/09/2007 108 19.0 89.0
2 1/10/2007 – 30/09/2008 108 15.6 92.4
3 1/10/2008 – 30/09/2009 108 11.1 96.9
4 1/10/2009 – 30/09/2010 108 17.6 90.4
5 1/10/2010 – 30/09/2011 108 12.7 95.3 5
3 5
6 1/10/2011 – 30/09/2012 108 12.0 96.0
7 1/10/2012 – 30/09/2013 108 11.2 96.8
8 1/10/2013 – 30/09/2014 108 9.7 98.4
9 1/10/2014 – 30/09/2015 108 8.3 99.7
10 1/10/2015 – 30/09/2016 108 7.2 100.8
11 1/10/2016 – 30/09/2017 108 6.2 101.8
12 1/10/2017 – 30/09/2018 108 5.3 102.7
13 1/10/2018 – 30/09/2019 108 4.6 103.4
14 1/10/2019 – 30/09/2020 108 3.9 104.1
15 1/10/2020 – 30/09/2021 108 3.3 104.7
4
16 1/10/2021 – 28/11/2021 108 0 108.0
Notes
1) The Nam Phong Expected Forecast (updated by Coastal and Salamander)
2) Sinphuhorm DCQ – GSA DCQ – Nam Phong Production
3) 1st January, 2012 is in Contract Year 6.
4)
Contract Year 16 has 58 days (from 1st October, 2021 to 28th November, 2021)
5)
The buyer had requested an increase to the DCQ rate to 96 MMscf/d from 9th January, 2011.
Therefore, the average DCQ rate for contract year 5 (from 1st October, 2010 to 30th September,
2011) was 95.3 MMscf/d. RPS had assumed that the DCQ rate remains 96 MMscf until the end of
contract year 6. For the subsequent contract years, the DCQ rates remain as per the previous
evaluation.
As of 31st December, 2011, 156.7 Bscf of gas has been sold from the Sinphuhorm Gas Field. Due to
flooding, the gas production has been reduced from September until December 2011. It has been
assumed that the production will be back to normal rate in April 2012. As of December 2011,
approximately 8 Bscf of contracted gas volume is not sold due to gas production at reduced rate.
ECV1837.03 16
It should be noted that the Sinphuhorm production license for the EU1 and E5N blocks expire on
19th May, 2034 extend beyond the current GSA expiry date of 28th November, 2021. Coastal are
confident that an extension or new GSA might be signed, particularly as the field will be producing
at its highest rate in 2021. Based that a new/extended GSA will be signed, we have estimated 2P
and 3P Reserves volumes.
Section 3.3.3 of the March 2007 SPE PRMS document states that ”where the risk of cessation of rights
to produce, or inability to secure gas contracts, is not considered significant, evaluators may choose to
incorporate the uncertainty by categorizing quantities to be recovered beyond the current contract as
Probable or Possible Reserves”.
In the current economic climate, RPS believes that it is probable, but, by no means certain, that the
vendor will locate a willing buyer for the remaining gas volumes; and that the resulting terms will be
sufficiently attractive for Coastal and its partners to maintain their ongoing participation. Note,
however, the extension GSA volumes are almost exclusively produced from the conceptual
development of the “Unconnected” volumes. Thus, they are at risk of being re-classified as
Contingent Resources as stated in Section 2.11.1 of this report. Table 2-10 provides a
summary.
Table 2-10 – Contracted and Uncontracted Gas and Condensate Volumes
Sinphuhorm - Hydrocarbon Resource Base

Low Best High
Estimate Estimate Estimate Remarks
"Connected" Gas
A South Area “Connected” GIIP, Bscf 328 379 446 From P/Z Analysis (Table 2-5)
B Central Area “Connected” GIIP, Bscf 386 444 511 From P/Z Analysis (Table 2-5)
C Total “Connected” GIIP, Bscf 714 824 957 A+B
D Recovery Factor, % 90% 90% 90% Best Estimate from Material Balance Modelling
E "Connected" EUR Wellhead Gas, Bscf 643 742 861 C*D
F "Connected" EUR Sales Gas, Bscf 638 736 855 E*(100%-0.7%) : for Shrinkage
"Unconnected" Gas
G Total “Unconnected” GIIP, Bscf 929 2,586 5,876 From "Mapped" minus "Connected" volumes
H Recovery Factor, % 0% 38% 82% From Nam Phong and US analogue
J "Unconnected" EUR Wellhead Gas, Bscf 0 977 4796 G*H
K "Unconnected" EUR Sales Gas, Bscf 0 970 4,763 J*(100%-0.7%) : for Shrinkage
Gas Production & Remaining Resources

L Total EUR Sales Gas, Bscf 1) 638 1,707 5,618 F+K
M Sales Gas Sold, Bscf -157 -157 -157 Historical sales gas production
N Remaining EUR Sales Gas, Bscf 481 1,550 5,461 L-N
Contracted and Uncontracted Gas
P Contracted Sales Gas, Bscf 352 964 964 DCQ (including GSA extension/downtime)
Q “Lost” Gas, Bscf -8 -8 -8 Inability to meet the contracted DCQ
R Sales Gas Volumes, Bscf 1) 344 956 956 Sales Gas Profiles at end of GSA/extensions
S Uncontracted Gas Resource, Bscf 2) 138 594 4,505 N-R : Uncontracted Gas Resources
ECV1837.03 17
Sinphuhorm - Hydrocarbon Resource Base

Low Best High
Condensate Production & Remaining Resources
T CGR, stb/MMscf 5.1 5.1 5.1 From production ratios
U Condensate Sold, MMbbl -0.8 -0.8 -0.8 Historical sales condensate production
V Sales Condensate Volumes, MMbbl 1.8 4.9 4.9 R*T : Sales Condensate at end of GSA/extensions
W Uncontracted Condensate Resource, MMbbl 2) 0.7 3.5 24.5 From production profiles
Notes:
1)
Assumes only “Connected” volumes are sold in the Low Estimate Gas Sales case.
2)
Uncontracted Sales Gas and Condensate volumes are assigned to Contingent Resources.
Maintenance days have been allocated in the Gas Sales Agreement; applying 20 days per year in the
Low Estimate and no downtime for the Best and High Estimates. This reduces solely the minimum
obligation of the buyer and not the vendor.
2.12.4 Uncontracted Gas and Condensate Volumes

Volumes of gas that will not be produced during the GSA extension term have been classified as
Contingent Resources Table 2-11. The majority of these lie within the “Unconnected” area.
Note that these volumes may be increased should the “Unconnected” volumes currently assigned
to Reserves be re-classified as Contingent Resources (see Section 2.11.1 of this report).
Table 2-11 – Uncontracted Recoverable Sales Gas Volumes
Sinphuhorm – Uncontracted Recoverable Volumes

Low Best High
Uncontracted Sales Gas (Bscf) 1) 138 594 4,505 (Table 2-10)
Uncontracted Condensate (MMbbl) 0.7 3.5 24.5 (Table 2-10)
Note:
1) After applying 0.7% shrinkage for fuel and flare.
ECV1837.03 18
L15/43 Scale
0 (km) 25
N th Phu
North Ph Horm
H
Sinphuhorm
L27/43
Nam
Phong
Map supplied by APICO

Sinphuhorm Gas Field (Concessions EU1, E5N)
Current Coastal Exploration Concessions
Original Coastal Concessions L15/43 and L27/43
Figure 2-1 – Location of the Sinphuhorm Gas Field and Concession L15/43
L27/43
Karsted Ls.
Dolomite
Figure 2-2 – Onshore Thailand Stratigraphic Column
PH-1
PH-2
PH-6
PH-4
PH-10
PH-7
PH-5 PH-3
SPH-1
5 km
Western Limit of Indosinian-1

Indosinian 1
Estimated Gas-Water Contact
Unconformity Truncation
Low: 2,156 mTVDSS Best
Best: 2,279 mTVDSS Maximum
High: 2,587 mTVDSS Approximate “tank” areas
Figure 2-3 – Sinphuhorm Gas Field Top Structure Map (RPS)
Sinphuhorm (Central Area) - Reservoir Pressure
PH-10ST PH-4
4000
3800
eservoir Pressure (psia)
3600
3400
3200
3000
2800
2600
Re
2400
2200
2000
Jan-04 May-05 Oct-06 Feb-08 Jul-09 Nov-10 Apr-12
Date
Sinphuhorm (South Area) - Reservoir Pressure
PH-5
PH 5 PH-3
PH 3
4000
3800
Reservoirr Pressure (psia)
3600
3400
3200
3000
2800
2600
2400
2200
2000
Sep-02 Jan-04 May-05 Oct-06 Feb-08 Jul-09 Nov-10 Apr-12
Date
Sinphuhorm - Average Reservoir Pressure
Central Area South Area
3900
3700
e (psia)
3500
Reservoir Pressure
3300
3100
2900
2700
2500
May 05
May-05 Oct 06
Oct-06 Feb 08
Feb-08 Jul 09
Jul-09 Nov 10
Nov-10 Apr 12
Apr-12
Date
Figure 2-4 – Sinphuhorm Gas Field Reservoir Pressure
Figure 2-5 – Sinphuhorm Gas Field Production History
Central Area ‐ Gas Rate & FWHP
PH‐10ST Gas Rate PH‐4 Gas Rate PH‐10ST FWHP PH‐4 FWHP
120.00
3000.0
100.00
2500.0
80.00
2000.0
Mscf/d)
FWHP (pssig)
Gas Rate (MM
60.00
1500.0
40.00 1000.0
20.00 500 0
500.0
0.00 0.0
29‐Nov‐06 25‐Sep‐07 21‐Jul‐08 17‐May‐09 13‐Mar‐10 07‐Jan‐11 03‐Nov‐11
Date
South Area ‐ Gas Rate & FWHP
PH‐5 Gas Rate PH‐3 Gas Rate PH‐5 FWHP PH‐3 FWHP
100.00
3000.0
90.00
80.00 2500.0
70.00
2000.0
Gas Rate (MMscf/d)
60.00
FWHP (psig)
50.00
1500.0
40.00
1000 0
1000.0
30.00
20.00
500.0
10.00
0.00 0.0
29‐Nov‐06 25‐Sep‐07 21‐Jul‐08 17‐May‐09 13‐Mar‐10 07‐Jan‐11 03‐Nov‐11
Date
Figure 2-6 – Sinphuhorm Gas Field FWHPs
Central Area
Central Area Low Est. Best Est. High Est.
4500
4000
3500
3000
sia)
2500
P/Z (ps
2000
1500
1000
500
0 444.5
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Cumulative Gas (Bscf)
South Area
South Area Low Est. Best Est. High Est.
4500
4000
3500
3000
P/Z (psia)
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0 379.5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Cumulative Gas ((Bscf))
Figure 2.7 – Sinphuhorm Gas Field P/Z GIIP Estimates (RPS)
eting (14th October. 2011)

m Operator’s Technical Committee Mee
From
Figure 2.8 – Sinphuhorm Gas Field P/Z GIIP Estimate (Operator)
3 Commercial Evaluation
3.1 Thai Concession Terms
The Sinphuhorm gas field lies within the EU1 and E-5 production licenses on the Khorat Plateau,
Thailand. The principal commercial terms are summarized in Table 3-1:
Table 3-1 – Principal Commercial Terms
Royalty (paid in cash or in kind) - tax creditable 12.5%

Tax 50%
Depreciation rate for capital expenditure 20% p.a.
It is assumed that maintenance operations are curtailed and de-manning commences in the last four
years of the contract period.
3.2 Capital and Operating Costs
Table 3-2 presents a summary of the forecasted Capital Expenditure (“CAPEX”) and Operating
Expenditure (“OPEX”) for the 1P, 2P, and 3P profiles provided by Coastal.
Table 3-2 – Forecast CAPEX and OPEX (US$ Million, 2012) for the Sinphuhorm Development
1P 2P 3P
Year
CAPEX OPEX CAPEX OPEX CAPEX OPEX
2012 4.3 14.8 4.3 14.8 4.3 14.8
2013 56.65 20.6 116.8 20.6 116.8 20.6
2014 10.2 14.3 16.4 14.3 16.4 14.3
2015 14.4 14.8 14.4 14.8 14.4 14.8
2016 10.7 15.1 10.7 15.1 10.7 15.1
2017 15.1 15.1 15.1
2018 15.1 15.1 15.1
2019 15.1 15.1 15.1
2020 15.1 15.1 15.1
2021 15.1 15.1 15.1
2022 15.1 15.1
2023 15.1 15.1
2024 15.1 15.1
ECV1837.03 27
1P 2P 3P
Year
CAPEX OPEX CAPEX OPEX CAPEX OPEX
2025 15.1 15.1
2026 15.1 15.1
2027 15.1 15.1
2028 15.1 15.1
2029 15.1 15.1
2030 15.1 15.1
2031 15.1 15.1
2032 15.1 15.1
2033 15.1 15.1
2034 15.1 15.1
2035 15.1 15.1
2036 15.1 15.1
3.3 Gas Contract and Prices
3.3.1 Sinphuhorm Contract Volumes

A gas sales contract is in place between the parties in the Sinphuhorm field and the Petroleum
Authority of Thailand (“PTT”) as the buyer. The agreed contract volumes are shown in Table 2-9.
The contracted volumes also assume that the maximum scheduled number of maintenance days are
taken as defined in the contract.
3.3.2 Sinphuhorm Gas Price

The contract gas price is based on a formula linking the final gas price to the 6-month average price
for Singapore posted HSFO 180. The final “Contract Price” is based on the “Current Price”, which
is a function of the “Normal Price”, and a “Floor Price”, multiplied by a scaling factor.
3.3.3 Sinphuhorm Unitisation

For the 1P case, the “Connected” Sinphuhorm gas is estimated to be contained entirely within the
EU1 and E-5 production licenses, in which Coastal has a 12.6% working interest. For the 2P and 3P
case, the field, as modelled, extends out of the Production Licenses and into the adjacent L15/43
exploration license, where Coastal has a 36.1% working interest. For the 2P and 3P cases, we have
assumed the probability that this field may be unitised from 1st January, 2014. The estimated
unitised shares are as shown in Table 3-3.
ECV1837.03 28
Table 3-3 – Estimated Unitised Share for the Sinphuhorm Gas Field
Coastal Final Working

Reserves Case: EU1 and E-5 L15/43
Interest in Unitised Share
1P 100% 0% 12.60%
2P 94.0% 6.0% 14.00%
3P 84.7% 15.3% 16.20%
The percentages that RPS has presented in this report are based solely on RPS’s assessment of the
structure of the Sinphuhorm Gas Field and any envisaged unitisation activities. Any working
interest and resource estimates regarding the unitised share for the Sinphuhorm Gas Field are
subject to change with further data acquisition and future activities.
ECV1837.03 29
4 Resource Statement
The extent of the Sinphuhorm Field has not been fully delineated by drilling. In RPS’s assessment,
the “Connected” volume does not extend into the exploration concession to the South (L15/43),
so there are no unitization assumptions in the Low Estimate EUR Forecast. Resulting Proved
volumes are based on the assumption that Coastal’s Working Interest will remain at 12.6%.
For the Best Estimate GIIP, approximately 6% of the “Mapped” field was estimated to lie in block
L15/43. Coastal’s Working Interest in that concession is 36.1% through their 100% interest in
APICO. Thus, any production from this area would result in a small increase in Coastal’s Working
Interest in the Sinphuhorm Field. It is estimated that this would have the effect of increasing
Coastal’s Working Interest in a unitized Sinphuhorm field to 14.0% in the Best Estimate scenario.
This Working Interest has been used in the estimation of the 2P Reserves and 2C Contingent
Resources.
The High Estimate 3P and 3C cases assume approximately 15.3% of the mapped field lies in block
L15/43. This increased Coastal’s Working Interest in the Sinphuhorm Field to 16.2%. It has been
assumed that negotiations and equity determinations will be completed by 1st January, 2014, at
which time equalization payments will be made.
Table 4-1 and Table 4-2 show the gross sales gas and condensate Reserves as of 1st January,
2012.
Table 4-1 – Sinphuhorm Field Gross Reserves Estimate as of 1st January, 2012
Gross Reserves
Proved Proved plus Proved plus
Probable Probable plus
Possible
Sinphuhorm Sales Gas (Bscf) 344 957 957
Sinphuhorm Condensate (MMbbl) 1.8 4.9 4.9
Total (MMBOE)(1) 59.0 164.3 164.3
Notes:
1) Gas to BOE conversion factor is 6.0 Bscf per 1.0 million barrels of oil equivalent (BOE).
Table 4-2 – Sinphuhorm Field Coastal’s Net Entitlement Reserves Estimate as of 1st January, 2012
Coastal’s Net Entitlement Reserves

Probable Probable plus
Possible
Working Interest (%)(1) 12.6% 14.0% 16.2%
Sinphuhorm Sales Gas (Bscf) 43 133 152
Sinphuhorm Condensate (MMbbl) 0.2 0.7 0.8
Total (MMBOE)(2) 7.4 22.9 26.2
Notes:
1) Coastal’s Working Interest from 1st January, 2014 after unitisation.
2) Gas to BOE conversion factor is 6.0 Bscf per 1.0 million barrels of oil equivalent (BOE).
ECV1837.03 31
Table 4-3 and Table 4-4 show the sales gas and condensate Reserves reconciliation. Apart from
production adjustments, the revisions to 1st January, 2012 for the field have shown:
 The reduction in gas Reserves are due to Coastal’s assumption that the Nam Phong field
decline is much less than previously assumed; this reduces the Sinphuhorm DCQ rate.
 A slight decrease in condensate volume is due to use of lower historical CGR and
reduced raw gas production.
Table 4-3 – Sinphuhorm Field Gross Sales Gas Reserves Reconciliation

(Bscf) Probable Probable plus
(Bscf) Possible
(Bscf)
1st January, 2011(1) 370 993 993
Extensions
Discoveries
Technical Revisions 4 -6 -6
Acquisitions
Depositions
Economic Factors
Production -30 -30 -30
1st January, 2012 344 957 957
Note:
1) Previous estimates based on work by RPS for Coastal Energy in a
report entitled “Sinphuhorm Gas Field Reserves Update as of 1st
January, 2011”, issued on the 14th April, 2011 (ECV1725).
Table 4-4 – Sinphuhorm Field Gross Condensate Reserves Reconciliation

(MMbbl) Probable Probable plus
(MMbbl) Possible
(MMbbl)
1st January, 2011(1) 1.9 5.2 5.2
Extensions
Discoveries
Technical Revisions 0 -0.2 -0.2
Acquisitions
Depositions
Economic Factors
Production -0.1 -0.1 -0.1
1st January, 2012 1.8 4.9 4.9
Note:
ECV1837.03 32
Reconciliations have been completed for Coastal’s Working Interest and Net Company Reserves,
as presented in Table 4-5 and Table 4-6.
Table 4-5 – Sinphuhorm Field Coastal Net Company Sales Gas Reserves
Reconciliation (Forecast Prices and Costs)

(Bscf) Probable Probable plus
(Bscf) Possible
(Bscf)
1st January, 2011(1) 47 139 160
Extensions
Discoveries
Technical Revisions 0 -2 -3
Acquisitions
Depositions
Economic Factors
Production -4 -4 -4
1st January, 2012 43 133 152
Note:
Table 4-6 – Sinphuhorm Field Coastal Net Company Condensate Reserves

Reconciliation (Forecast Prices and Costs)

(MMbbl) Probable Probable plus
(MMbbl) Possible
(MMbbl)
1st January, 2011(1) 0.2 0.7 0.8
Extensions
Discoveries
Technical Revisions 0 0 0
Acquisitions
Depositions
Economic Factors
Production -0.0 -0.0 -0.0
1st January, 2012 0.2 0.7 0.8
Note:
ECV1837.03 33
The gas and condensate production profiles are presented in Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2,
respectively. Forecast charts for the respective hydrocarbon streams are presented in Figure 4-3
and Figure 4-4.
ECV1837.03 34
CASE PARAMETERS COMPANY INTERESTS
Client Coastal Energy

gy 1P 12.6 %
Region South East Asia 2P 14.0 %
Country Thailand 3P 16.2 %
Field Sinphuhorm Licence
Phase Gas
FORECAST FUTURE GROSS FIELD PRODUCTION (100% BASIS)

Year Production 1P or P90 2P or P50 3P or P10
Days
Cum. Cum. Cum.
mmscf/d bscf bscf mmscf/d bscf bscf mmscf/d bscf bscf
1 2012 346/366 92 32 32 91 33 33 91 33 33
2 2013 345/365 97 34 65 97 35 69 97 35 69
3 2014 345/365 99 34 99 99 36 105 99 36 105
4 2015 345/365 100 34 134 100 36 141 100 36 141
5 2016 346/366 101 35 169 102 37 178 102 37 178
6 2017 345/365 102 35 204 102 37 216 102 37 216
7 2018 345/365 103 35 240 103 38 253 103 38 253
8 2019 345/365 104 36 275 103 38 291 103 38 291
9 2020 346/366 104 36 311 104 38 329 104 38 329
10 2021 314/365 103 32 344 106 39 368 106 39 368
11 2022 365 109 40 407 109 40 407
12 2023 365 108 39 447 108 39 447
13 2024 366 108 39 486 108 39 486
14 2025 365 108 39 526 108 39 526
15 2026 365 109 40 566 109 40 566
16 2027 365 109 40 606 109 40 606
17 2028 366 107 39 645 107 39 645
18 2029 365 108 39 684 108 39 684
19 2030 365 108 39 724 108 39 724
20 2031 365 108 40 763 108 40 763
21 2032 366 107 39 802 107 39 802
22 2033 365 108 39 842 108 39 842
23 2034 365 108 39 881 108 39 881
24 2035 365 108 39 921 108 39 921
25 2036 333 108 36 957 108 36 957
Sub Total 344 957 957
Remaining
Total 344 957 957
Notes: 1P uses 314 days in 2021 (from 1 Jan 2021 till 28 Nov 2021 with 18 days maintenance days)
1P - Assumes 20 maintenance days per year.
2P & 3P - No maintenance days and end date is 28 November 2036.
Figure 4.1 – Sinphuhorm Gas Field Gas Production Profile
CASE PARAMETERS COMPANY INTERESTS
Client Coastal Energy

gy 1P 12.6 %
Region South East Asia 2P 14.0 %
Country Thailand 3P 16.2 %
Field Sinphuhorm Licence
Phase Condensate
FORECAST FUTURE GROSS FIELD PRODUCTION (100% BASIS)

Year Production 1P or P90 2P or P50 3P or P10
Days
Cum. Cum. Cum.
stb/d MM bbls MM bbls stb/d MM bbls MM bbls stb/d MM bbls MM bbls
1 2012 346/366 472 0.2 0.2 467 0.2 0.2 467 0.2 0.2
2 2013 345/365 499 0.2 0.3 497 0.2 0.4 497 0.2 0.4
3 2014 345/365 507 0.2 0.5 507 0.2 0.5 507 0.2 0.5
4 2015 345/365 514 0.2 0.7 514 0.2 0.7 514 0.2 0.7
5 2016 346/366 519 02
0.2 09
0.9 524 02
0.2 09
0.9 524 02
0.2 09
0.9
6 2017 345/365 524 0.2 1.0 524 0.2 1.1 524 0.2 1.1
7 2018 345/365 528 0.2 1.2 528 0.2 1.3 528 0.2 1.3
8 2019 345/365 532 0.2 1.4 531 0.2 1.5 531 0.2 1.5
9 2020 346/366 535 0.2 1.6 535 0.2 1.7 535 0.2 1.7
10 2021 314/365 529 0.2 1.8 542 0.2 1.9 542 0.2 1.9
11 2022 365 561 0.2 2.1 561 0.2 2.1
12 2023 365 555 02
0.2 23
2.3 555 02
0.2 23
2.3
13 2024 366 554 0.2 2.5 554 0.2 2.5
14 2025 365 555 0.2 2.7 555 0.2 2.7
15 2026 365 561 0.2 2.9 561 0.2 2.9
16 2027 365 561 0.2 3.1 561 0.2 3.1
17 2028 366 552 0.2 3.3 552 0.2 3.3
18 2029 365 554 0.2 3.5 554 0.2 3.5
19 2030 365 555 0.2 3.7 555 0.2 3.7
20 2031 365 556 0.2 3.9 556 0.2 3.9
21 2032 366 551 0.2 4.1 551 0.2 4.1
22 2033 365 555 0.2 4.3 555 0.2 4.3
23 2034 365 555 0.2 4.5 555 0.2 4.5
24 2035 365 555 0.2 4.7 555 0.2 4.7
25 2036 333 553 0.2 4.9 553 0.2 4.9
Sub Total 1.8 4.9 4.9
Remaining
Total 1.8 4.9 4.9
Notes: 1P uses 314 days in 2021 (from 1 Jan 2021 till 28 Nov 2021 with 18 days maintenance days)
1P - Assumes 20 maintenance days per year.
2P & 3P - No maintenance days and end date is 28 November 2036.
Figure 4.2 – Sinphuhorm Gas Field Condensate Production Profile
Sinphuhorm Sales Gas Profiles

120
100
80
MMscf/d
60
40
20
0
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
1P 2P 3P
Figure 4.3 – Sinphuhorm Gas Field Gas Production Forecast
Sinphuhorm Condensate Production Profiles

600
500
400
stb/d
300
200
100
0
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
1P 2P 3P
Figure 4.4 – Sinphuhorm Gas Field Condensate Production Forecast
5 NI 51-101 Reporting of Reserves

A summary of the Reserves for the Sinphuhorm field as calculated in accordance with Canadian
National Instrument 51-101 and the Reserve and Resource definitions of the Canadian Oil and Gas
Evaluation Handbook is shown in Table 5-1 to Table 5-9.
Thailand is a Tax and Royalty regime. Royalty is treated as tax, and thus, attributable Net
Entitlement Share is reported as Coastal’s working interest volumes including Royalty.
Table 5-1 – Sinphuhorm Field Summary of the Evaluation of the Petroleum Reserves
as of 1st January, 2012
Remaining
Net Present Values (US$ Million)
Ultimate Reserves
Product Classification
Reserves Company Before Income Taxes After Income Taxes
Gross Net 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Non-Associated Gas (MMcf)

Total Proved 501,529 343,690 43,305 274 215 173 144 122 186 147 119 99 84
Probable 612,926 612,926 89,750 679 303 148 79 45 444 198 97 52 30
Total Proved + Probable 1,114,455 956,616 133,055 953 517 321 222 167 630 345 216 151 114
Natural Gas Liquid (Mbbl)

Proved Developed Producing 2,143 1,344 169 13 10 9 7 6 9 7 6 5 4
Proven Undeveloped 422 422 53 4 3 2 2 1 3 2 2 1 1
Total Proved 2,565 1,765 222 17 14 11 9 8 12 9 8 6 5
Probable 3,148 3,148 461 46 21 10 6 3 30 14 7 4 2
Total Proved + Probable 5,713 4,913 683 63 34 21 15 11 42 23 14 10 8
Grand Total (MBOE)(1)

Total Proved 86,153 59,047 7,440 291 228 184 153 129 198 156 127 105 90
Probable 105,302 105,302 15,419 725 323 159 85 49 474 212 104 56 32
Total Proved + Probable 191,455 164,349 22,859 1016 552 343 237 178 671 368 231 161 122
Notes: (1) Using 6.0 Mscf/BOE
ECV1837.03 39
Table 5-2 – Total Future Net Revenue Undiscounted Forecast Prices and Costs as of 1st January, 2012
Future Future
Abandonment Net Net
Operating Development & Revenue Income Revenue
Revenue Royalties
Costs Costs Reclamation Before Tax After
Reserves Category
Costs Income Income
Tax Tax
US$ Million
Proved Reserves 372 46 21 13 0 291 93 198

Proved plus Probable
1,264 158 68 22 0 1,016 345 671
Reserves
Proved plus Probable
Reserves plus 1,449 181 78 23 0 1,167 397 770
Possible Reserves
Table 5-3 – Sinphuhorm Field Volumetric Reserves Estimates Reservoir Data
Monte Carlo Parameter Inputs Low Input Mid Input High Input
Gross Rock Volume (thousand acre.ft) 6,105 13,820 44,520
Gas-water Contact (m TVDSS) -2,156 -2,279 -2,587
Net-to-Gross (%) 100 100 100
Matrix Porosity (%) 1.5 2.5 3.0
Matrix Water Saturation (%) 60.0 42.5 35.0
Fracture Porosity (%) 0.22 0.67 2.00
Fracture Water Saturation (%) 20 15 10
Gas Expansion Factor (scf/rcf) 207 208 209
Monte Carlo Outputs P90 P50 P10
GIIP (Bscf) 1,643 3,410 6,833
ECV1837.03 40
Table 5-4 – Estimates of Proved Reserves and Net Present Values for the Sinphuhorm Field (as of 1st January, 2012)
Non-Associated Gas Reserves

Pool & Original Recovery Ultimate Cumulative Gas Surface Remaining Gas Company Company Lessor Company Net Present Value
Location Gas in Factor Gas Production Reserves Loss Reserves Working Gross Royalties Net(1)
Place (%) Recovery (Raw Gas) (Raw (%) Gas (Sales Interest Gas & Gas Before Income Taxes
(MMcf) (Raw to 31st Gas) Available Gas) (%) Reserves Burdens Reserves (US$ million)
Gas) December, (MMcf) (MMcf) (MMcf) (%) (MMcf)
(MMcf) 2011 For Sale
(MMcf) (MMcf)
@0% @5% @10% @15%
Sinphuhorm
Field, 758,000 90.0 682,200 157,839 524,361 7.0 487,656 343,690 12.6 43,305 0 43,305 291 228 184 153
Thailand
Natural Gas Liquids Reserves (Value Included with Non-Associated Gas)

Pool & Gas Liquid Condensate Company Company Lessor Company
Location Reserves Recovery Reserves Working Gross Royalties Net(1)
(Sales (bbl/MMcf) (Mbbl) Interest Condensate & Condensate
Gas) (%) Reserves Burdens Reserves
(MMcf) (Sales (%) (Mbbl)
Gas) (Mbbl)
Sinphuhorm
Field, 343,690 5.14 1,765 12.6 222 0 222
Thailand
1 Net Entitlement: Thailand is a Tax and Royalty regime. Royalty is treated as tax and is paid in cash, and thus, attributable Net Entitlement Share is reported as Coastal’s working interest
volumes including associated Royalty volumes.
ECV1837.03 41
Table 5-5 – Estimates of Proved Plus Probable Reserves and Net Present Values for the Sinphuhorm Field (as of 1st January, 2012)
Non-Associated Gas Reserves

Pool & Original Recovery Ultimate Cumulative Gas Surface Remaining Gas Company Company Lessor Company Net Present Value
Location Gas in Factor Gas Production Reserves Loss Reserves Working Gross Royalties Net(1)
Place (%) Recovery (Raw Gas) (Raw (%) Gas (Sales Interest Gas & Gas Before Income Taxes
(MMcf) (Raw to 31st Gas) Available Gas) (%) Reserves Burdens Reserves (US$ million)
Gas) December, (MMcf) (MMcf) (MMcf) (%) (MMcf)
(MMcf) 2011 For Sale
(MMcf) (MMcf)
@0% @5% @10% @15%
Sinphuhorm
Field, 1,909,600 90.0 1,718,640 157,839 1,560,801 7.0 1,451,545 956,616 14.0 133,055 0 133,055 1,016 552 343 237
Thailand
Natural Gas Liquids Reserves (Value Included with Non-Associated Gas)

Pool & Gas Liquid Condensate Company Company Lessor Company
Location Reserves Recovery Reserves Working Gross Royalties Net(1)
(Sales (bbl/MMcf) (Mbbl) Interest Condensate & Condensate
Gas) (%) Reserves Burdens Reserves
(MMcf) (Sales (%) (Mbbl)
Gas) (Mbbl)
Sinphuhorm
Field 956,616 5.14 4,913 13.9 683 0 683
Thailand
1 Net Entitlement: Thailand is a Tax and Royalty regime. Royalty is treated as tax and is paid in cash, and thus, attributable Net Entitlement Share is reported as Coastal’s working
interest volumes including associated Royalty volumes.
ECV1837.03 42
FOR THE SINPUHORM GAS FIELD AS OF 1st JANUARY, 2012
Table 5-6 – Sinphuhorm Field Remaining Gas Reserves Reconciliation, 100% Basis
Period & Factor Remaining Reserves (MMcf)

Proved +
Proved + Probable
Proved Probable Probable Possible + Possible
1st January, 2011 370,477 622,873 993,351 10 993,360
Extensions
Discoveries
Technical Revisions 3,519 -9,947 -6,428 -10 -6,438
Acquisitions
Depositions
Economic Factors
Production -30,306 -30,306 -30,306
1st January, 2012 343,690 612,926 956,616 0 956,616
Table 5-7 – Sinphuhorm Field Remaining Condensate Reserves Reconciliation, 100% Basis
Period & Factor Remaining Reserves (Mbbl)

Proved +
Proved + Probable
1st January, 2011 1,945 3,270 5,215 0 5,215
Extensions
Discoveries
Technical Revisions -42 -122 -164 0 -164
Acquisitions
Depositions
Economic Factors
1st January, 2012 1,765 3,148 4,913 0 4,913
ECV1837.03 43
Table 5-8 – Sinphuhorm Field Remaining Gas Reserves Reconciliation, Coastal’s Net Entitlement
Period & Factor Remaining Reserves (MMcf)

Proved +
Proved + Probable
1st January, 2011 46,680 91,994 138,674 20,961 159,635
Extensions
Discoveries
Technical Revisions 443 -2,244 -1,801 -1,538 -3,339
Acquisitions
Depositions
Economic Factors
Production -3,819 -3,819 -3,819
1st January, 2012 43,305 89,750 133,055 19,422 152,477
Table 5-9 – Sinphuhorm Field Remaining Condensate Reserves Reconciliation, Coastal’s Net Entitlement
Period & Factor Remaining Reserves (Mbbl)

Proved +
Proved + Probable
1st January, 2011 245 483 728 110 838
Extensions
Discoveries
Technical Revisions -5 -22 -27 -10 -38
Acquisitions
Depositions
Economic Factors
1st January, 2012 222 461 683 100 783
ECV1837.03 44
Appendices
APPENDIX I
GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL
TERMS
ECV1837.03 45
APPENDIX 1 - GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS

1C Low Estimate Contingent Resources
2C Best Estimate Contingent Resources
3C High Estimate Contingent Resources
1P Proved Reserves
2P Proved plus Probable Reserves
3P Proved plus Probable plus Possible Reserve
Acre Area in acre
AOF Absolute Open Flow
API American Petroleum Institute
B billion
bbl barrels
bbl/d barrels per day
BBTUD Billions of British Thermal Units per Day
bcpd barrels of condensate per day
BOE barrel of oil equivalent
Bg gas formation volume factor
Bgi gas formation volume factor (initial)
Bo oil formation volume factor
Boi oil formation volume factor (initial)
Bw water volume factor
bcpd barrels of condensate per day
bopd barrels of oil per day
BTU British Thermal Unit
Bscf billions of standard cubic feet
bwpd barrels of water per day
°C Temperature in Centigrade
cc cubic centimetre
CGR condensate gas ratio
cP Viscosity in centiPoise
DCQ daily contracted quantity direct
DST Drill Stem Test
Entitlement Volumes the volumes of oil and/or gas which a Contractor receives under the terms of a PSC
ELT Economics Limit Test
EUR Estimated Ultimate Recovery
ECV1837.03 47

°F Temperature in Fahrenheit
FBHP flowing bottom hole pressure
FTHP flowing tubing head pressure
FTHT flowing tubing head temperature
ft Length in feet
ft3 Volume in cubic feet
ftSS depth in feet below sea level
GEF Gas Expansion Factor
GIP Gas in Place
GIIP Gas Initially in Place
gm Weight in grams
gm/cc Density in grams per cubic centimetre
GOR gas/oil ratio
GRV gross rock volume
GSA Gas Sales Agreement
GWC gas water contact
Ib Weight in pounds
Ib/cuft Density in pounds per cubic feet
KB Kelly Bushing
km Length in kilometres
km2 Area in square kilometres
3
km Volume in cubic kilometres
m Length in meter
MM million
MM$ million US dollars
MD measured depth
mD permeability in millidarcies
MDT Modular Formation Dynamics Tester
m3 cubic metres
3
m /d cubic metres per day
MMscf/d millions of standard cubic feet per day
Money of the Day Cash values calculated to include the effect of inflation
NTG net to gross ratio
NPV Net Present Value
OWC oil water contact
ECV1837.03 48

P1 Proved Reserves
P2 Probable Reserves
P3 Possible Reserves
Probability of 10% chance the value would be larger than the reported and
P10
considered high value
P50
considered best value
P90
considered low value
Pb bubble point pressure
Pc capillary pressure
petroleum deposits of oil and/or gas
phi porosity fraction
phie Effective porosity fraction
pi initial reservoir pressure
PRMS Petroleum Resources Management System (SPE Terminology)
PSC Production Sharing Contract
psi pounds per square inch
psia pounds per square inch absolute
psig pounds per square inch gauge
rcf Volume in reservoir cubic feet
Real Cash values calculated to exclude the effects of inflation
scf standard cubic feet measured at 14.7 pounds per square inch and 60°F
scfd standard cubic feet per day
scf/stb standard cubic feet per stock tank barrel
stb stock tank barrels measured at 14.7 pounds per square inch and 60°F
stb/d stock tank barrels per day
stock tank barrels per million standard cubic feet measured at 14.7 pounds per
stb/MMscf
square inch and 60°F
STOIIP stock tank oil initially in place
Sw water saturation
US$ United States Dollars
TAC Technical Assistance Contract
TAN Total Acid Number (of oil)
Tscf trillion standard cubic feet
TVDSS true vertical depth (sub-sea)
ECV1837.03 49

TVT true vertical thickness
TWT two-way time
US$ United States Dollar
Vsh shale volume
WI Working Interest
WC water cut
WHP Well Head Pressure
 porosity
ECV1837.03 50
APPENDIX II
RESERVES AND RESOURCES
DEFINITIONS AND GUIDELINES
ECV1837.03 51
RESERVES AND RESOURCES DEFINITIONS AND GUIDELINES

Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), World Petroleum Council (WPC), American Association of
Petroleum Geologists (AAPG), Society of Petroleum Evaluation Engineers (SPEE)
Petroleum Resources Management System (PRMS)
Definitions and Guidelines (3)
Preamble
Petroleum resources are the estimated quantities of hydrocarbons naturally occurring on or within the
Earth’s 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.
3 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, and available, free and in
full, at: www.spe.org/spe-app/spe/industry/reserves/index.htm
ECV1837.03 53
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.
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:
 the area delineated by drilling and defined by fluid contacts, if any, and
 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.
ECV1837.03 54
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.
ECV1837.03 55
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.
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.
ECV1837.03 56
ECV1837.03 57

Sinphuhorm Gas Field

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Sinphuhorm Gas Field

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RESERVES AND RESOURCES

Prepared by: Prepared for:

RPS Energy Consultants Limited Coastal Energy Company

Report No: ECV1837.03

Mr. Jerry Moon, Project Ref: ECV1837.03

EVALUATION OF COASTAL’S RESERVES IN THE SINPHUHORM GAS FIELD

Non-Associated Gas (MMcf)

Natural Gas Liquid (Mbbl)

Grand Total (MBOE)(1)

Low Best High Chance of

Gross (100%) Licence Basis

Gas (MMscf) 137,922 593,874 4,504,520 70%

Net Entitlement Interest 12.6% 14.0% 16.2%

North Phu Horm

Map supplied by APICO Sinphuhorm Gas Field (Concessions EU1, E5N)

Figure 1-1 – Location of Coastal’s Onshore Thailand Concessions

2 Concessions EU1, E5N and L15/43

Table 2-1 – Sinphuhorm Participants and their Working Interests

EU1 and E5N L15/43, L27/43

*) denotes Operator of the concession

2.2 Petroleum System

2.4 Sinphuhorm Structure

2.6 Static Volumetric Estimates

2.6.1 Gas-Water Contact

2.6.2 Indosinian-1 Unconformity Truncation

2.6.3 Monte Carlo Probabilistic Simulation

Table 2-2 – Sinphuhorm GIIP (Bscf, 100% Basis)

2.7 Reservoir Pressure and Temperature

2.8 Production History

2.9 Well Production Testing

Table 2-3 – PH-5 Welltest Summary

Flow Average Gas Rate Condensate-Gas Ratio Water-Gas Ratio Drawdown

2.10 Fluid Properties

2.11 Material Balance Analysis

 PH-4 and -10ST in the Central area, and;

Table 2-4 – The Latest Reservoir Pressure Measurements

Well Date Pressure (psia) Area Measurement

Gas Initially In-Place (Bscf)

2.11.1 “Mapped” versus “Connected” GIIP Estimates

Gas Initially In-Place (Bscf)

2.12 Recoverable Hydrocarbons

2.12.1 Further Development Plans

“Connected” Area Development

Schedule Drilling Area Low Best High

“Unconnected” Area Development

2.12.2 EUR Volumes

Table 2-8 – Sinphuhorm Gas Field EUR (Bscf, 100% Basis)

2.12.3 Resource Classification

Table 2-10 – Contracted and Uncontracted Gas and Condensate Volumes

Sinphuhorm - Hydrocarbon Resource Base

Gas Production & Remaining Resources

Sinphuhorm - Hydrocarbon Resource Base

2.12.4 Uncontracted Gas and Condensate Volumes

Table 2-11 – Uncontracted Recoverable Sales Gas Volumes

Sinphuhorm – Uncontracted Recoverable Volumes

Map supplied by APICO

Figure 2-2 – Onshore Thailand Stratigraphic Column

Western Limit of Indosinian-1

Best: 2,279 mTVDSS Maximum

High: 2,587 mTVDSS Approximate “tank” areas

Figure 2-3 – Sinphuhorm Gas Field Top Structure Map (RPS)

Sinphuhorm (Central Area) - Reservoir Pressure

Sinphuhorm (South Area) - Reservoir Pressure