Blank Page –

USE COVER
PAGE FROM
POWERPOINT

Introduction

Seismic
 a) Acquisition
b) Processing

Regional Geology
a) Regional Setting
b) Stratigraphy/Depositional Systems
c) Petroleum System
i. Biogenic Gas System
ii. Thermogenic Gas Risk

Seismic Interpretation
a) Time Horizons
b) Velocity Model/Depth Conversion
c) Depth Horizons/Isopach Maps
d) Amplitude

Leads
a) Ghughu
i. Geological Summary
ii. Amplitude
iii. Risk
iv. Seismic Facies
b) Other Leads

Ghughu – Infill Seismic Program

2D Seismic Acquisition

There were no seismic surveys recorded in deep water Bangladesh prior to

2012 with the exception of several seismic profiles acquired by research
institutions. ConocoPhillips and Petrobangla contracted BGP Inc. to acquire a
2D seismic survey in deepwater blocks 10 and 11, in February 2012. A total of
34 lines (2680 km) in 5 km x 5 km grid were acquired. Seismic operations were
initiated February 19 and completed March 23, a time window that falls during
the optimum weather window to acquire data in offshore Bangladesh. Seismic
acquisition parameters were design to image both structural and stratigraphic
traps across a very thick Tertiary section. Data were recorded to 10 seconds
using 4280 cubic inch guns. The fold of the data was kept very high (160 – 200)
throughout the program. Parameters were also designed for amplitude analysis
which could provide further insight to lithology detection and potential fluid type. A
10000 m cable allowed wide offsets and reliable data collection to angles of
incidence up to 550.

Special emphasis was placed on environmental and safety issues throughout the
acquisition phase. A MMO (marine mammal observer) specialist was placed
onboard the acquisition vessel to ensure marine species were not affected by the
operation.

Initial processing of the acquired data was done onboard to the Brute stack
stage. The objectives of this processing step was to ensure good data quality,
aid in understanding factors that were impacting the quality of the data, and
provide an early evaluation of the subsurface. Learnings from the Brute stack
processing were carried through to the processing flow, once the seismic data
was transferred to the processing center.

Seismic Processing
Seismic processing of the 2012 acquisition data was awarded to TGS in Houston
and was carried out from April 12, 2012 to September 14 ,2012. The main
processing objectives were to fully image the thick Tertiary section of the Bay of
Bengal in order to delineate structural and stratigraphic features and preserve
amplitudes for AVO analysis. The processing flow was organized in three stages:
Pre-processing, Time Imaging and AVO Processing.

At the pre-processing stage, the zero phase of the data was established. Noise
was attacked on the data both on a shot receiver domain and CMP (common
mid point ) Offset Domain. Multiple removal tests suggested a combination of
Tau-p and SRME was the most effective tool for data in water depths less than
1.5 seconds for data. In water depths greater than 1.5 seconds, a combination of
SRME and RADON proved optimal. Residual surface and inter-bedded multiples
were targeted with SMELT (TGS proprietary). Amplitude spectrum analysis was
performed prior to and after noise and multiple removal in order to ensure that
the signal was not altered.

At the time-imaging stage, stacking velocities that were picked on 1 km spacing

were used to populate the initial migration velocity field. Migrated gathers were
corrected for residual move-out and ETA which also accounts for anisotropy
effects. A final mute was applied to corrected gathers which were then were
stacked to provide the PSTM sections. Seismic data quality of the PSTM records
is very good with the exception of shallow anomalies, such as shallow gas, large
channel-levee complexes, and rapid changes on the water bottom that influence
the deeper time structure.

Amplitude anomalies, particular those occupying the shallow (within ~2 seconds

of the water bottom) part of the seismic record were analyzed on the migrated
gathers across the two blocks. The 00 to 40 angle traces were determined to
contain too much noise for amplitude analysis and were eliminated. The
remainder of the traces (angles up to 560) were separated into four different
volumes: Near volume (40 -170), middle volume (170 - 300), far volume (300 - 430),
and Ultra-far 430 - 560.

The ultra-far volume needs to be used with caution because some of the data in
these offsets can be questionable. The AVO volumes are very important in the
exploration effort of blocks 10 and 11.

Regional Setting
The ConocoPhillips deepwater blocks are situated just outboard of the modern-
day Bay of Bengal Shelf Edge in water depths between 250 to 1500 meters. The
geological section in Blocks 10 and 11 consists of Upper Cretaceous (?) to
modern and is dominated by deepwater sediments. Upper Cretaceous
sediments appear to have been deposited directly upon Cretaceous Oceanic
Crust within the study area. Total sedimentary thickness in the two blocks
surpasses 11000 meters in the northwest. The more prospective Miocene to
Pliocene section is dominated by mud-rich deepwater channel-levee complexes
that are derived from the Himalayan orogeny.

Blocks 10 and 11 are significantly west of the Tripura Fold Belt which occurs both
onshore and offshore along the Bangladesh/Myanmar boundary. The magnitude
of structure diminishes from east to west with no structural manifestation of the
fold belt remaining in blocks 10 and 11.

Stratigraphy and Depositional Systems

The chronostratigraphic chart along with major tectonic events is shown in the
first and second slides in this section. Most prospectivity in the block occurs
between the Upper Miocene F3 and top of the Pliocene section (G2) with the G1
being overall the most prospective interval. The overall thickness of the
sedimentary section is up to 11000 meters in the NW portion of blocks 10 and 11.
The base of the sedimentary section is clearly delimited by the occurrence of
seaward dipping reflectors representing oceanic crust with possible capping by
Cretaceous carbonates.

Several deep wells have been drilled on the outer part of the Bengal Shelf. The
BODC-3 well was the primary tie well and deliberately intersected by line 1299
for that purpose. The shallow G1 zone is tied via seismic to wells more landward
on the shelf and below approximately 1740 meters in the BODC-3 well (Core
Labs Report, 2001) the biostratigraphic markers appear to be reworked. This
reworking makes it difficult to constrain the stratigraphy in the lower portion of the
well and across the block 10 and 11 area. Furthermore, the deepest penetration
for an outer shelf well is into the F2 Late Miocene interval (see
chronostratigraphic chart). Consequently, the stratigraphy/seismic events from
Late Miocene to top Cretaceous are poorly age constrained.

The shelf edges trajectory is such that there is substantial progradation of the
The Upper Pliocene and Pleistocene section in blocks 10 and 11 are dominated
by deepwater high-relief channel-levee complexes and mass transport deposits.
The system is interpreted to be overall mud rich as evidenced by the significant
relief on the channel levee complexes, the apparent sinuosity of channels and
the paucity of well defined lobe complexes.

The play concept for blocks 10 and 11 are dependent on encountering sand-rich
frontal splays and lobes associated with the overall mud-rich deepwater channel-
levee complexes. The characteristics and predictability of these depositional
elements will be described in more detail in the Ghughu Lead Section of this
report.

Petroleum System
Biogenic Gas System

The onshore petroleum system in Bangladesh is well documented (Curiale et al.,

2002; Farhaduzzaman et al., 2012). The outer portion of the Bangladesh shelf
and deepwater are more challenging in terms of the petroleum system and, while
a thermogenic hydrocarbon source may exist in those area, most evidence
suggest that biogenic gas will be the most likely product of any hydrocarbon
discovery. Several dry holes on the outboard portion of the shelf appear to have
been drilled on closed structural highs and contain at least one (and generally
more) reservoir/seal pairs. Gas shows, while common, are limited to thin poorly
developed sands. The lack of significant gas accumulations in the outboard shelf
and the known biogenic gas accumulation at Shwe Field and Myanmar and the
Dhirubhai Fields in the Mahanadi Basin in India suggest a trend from
thermogenic gas on shore from Type 3 kerogens, to more mixed sources to the
south and exclusively biogenic accumulations (as discovered to date) on the
Myanmar and Indian shelves.

Published evidence suggests that both Shwe Field in Myanmar (Chung et al.,
2012) and Dhirubhai in India (Pande et al., 2011) have biogenic origins. Both
fields are extremely methane rich and display very light 13C methane
compositions. Blocks 10 and 11 display ubiquitous signs of gas in the shallow
section which include bottom-simulating hydrates and high amplitude seismic
events indicative of gas associated with hydrates. Chung et al. (2012) postulates
that biogenic gas at Shwe may have been stored initially as hydrates, becoming
free gas and moving into the Shwe trap as temperature increased with depth.

The primary concerns for a biogenic system in the deepwater of Bangladesh are
1. Lack of structural focus of gas

2. Depth:
a. Increase in temperature at depth influences range of gas-
generating biogenic activity
b. Increasing gas solubility at depth drives free gas back into solution

3. Quantity of TOC substantial enough to produce large volumes of biogenic

gas.

ConocoPhillips’ Subsurface Technology created a biogenic gas model that

suggested high risk for large multiple TCF gas accumulations in the deepwater of
Bangladesh.

Thermogenic Gas System

Although biogenic gas is deemed the most likely source of any hyrdrocarbons
found in blocks 10 and 11, a thermogenic source or mixed thermogenic/biogenic
source cannot be ruled out. The Jenam (Oligocene) and Bhuban Boka Bil
(Miocene-Pliocene) petroleum systems are well documented in the literature
(Curiale et al., 2002 and Farhaduzzaman et al., 2012). The authors, as well as
Core Labs (2002 Report) document thermogenically derived dry gas outboard
onto the inner part of the Bengal Shelf (e.g., Sangu Field). Further outboard, a
number of dry holes and the preponderance of biogenic gas at Shwe Field in
Myanmar and Dhirubhai in India suggests that the thermogenic source is
beginning to diminish in importance with distance from the modern delta.

Basin Modeling shows that although the Oligocene is currently in the wet gas
window, there is still high uncertainty regarding the occurrence of an organic rich
source interval in the area. Additionally, the lack of vertical features such as
faulting inhibits the ability of gas to migrate from any deeper thermogenic sources
into the shallower reservoirs.

Time Horizons
Although there is only one direct well tie to the 2012 seismic program (BODC -3
well on line 12999), older vintage shelf seismic were used to bring additional
well control from the Arco A-1, the Bina 1 and 2, and the rest of the BODC wells
into the blocks 10 and 11 seismic. Fourteen stratigraphic events from Basement
to Water Bottom were regionally correlated and mapped across the two blocks.
Shelf wells provided stratigraphic control for the section down to the Upper
Miocene (F2 sequence). Age classification for the pre Upper Miocene events to
top of basement is speculative at this time.

The water bottom topography in blocks 10 and 11 has a profound effect on the
underlying time structure. Large present-day channel-levee complexes form
positive elements at the sea floor and cross blocks 10 and 11 in a north-south
orientation. These depositional trends create topographic highs at the sea floor
that pull up deeper time structures. A similar time pull-up effect of the deeper
structure exists across the present-day slope because of the relative velocity
difference between the water depth on the seaward side (slow velocity) and the
sediment column on the landward side (fast velocity).

Presence of shallow gas has an opposite effect of the channel-levee complexes.

In this scenario, slow velocity gas-filled sediment pushes the underlying structure
down in areas vertically below the gas. This phenomenon primarily occurs in
areas where shallow gas hydrates are present and free gas is trapped below the
base of the hydrate layer.

Time mapping of the seismic data in blocks 10 and 11 did not reveal any salient
structural trends. The time structure in the pre-collision sequences (basement to
Oligocene) generally dip to the west. The post-collision sequences (Miocene to
recent) dip to the south and are heavily influenced by large scale channel-levee
complexes, canyon incisions and mass wasting processes particularly near the
younger portion of the section more proximal to the associated paleo shelf edge.

Velocity Model / Depth Conversion

There are no wells drilled in the deep water area of Bangladesh. The only well
close to Blocks 10 and 11 is the BODC-3 well (more than 44 km away, on the
shelf). The time-depth data available on this well comes from stacking velocities
derived from 1974 vintage shelf seismic data. The stacking velocities of the 2012
seismic shot in blocks 10 and 11, consequently, are the only data available for
building a velocity model for depth conversion.

A raw stacking velocity model was built for blocks 10 and 11 and was used for
the initial depth conversion of the time structures. Upon a close examination of
the model and the depth images it was providing, it was determined that the
initial model was not sufficient for depth conversions. Although stacking velocities
were smoothed during the processing of the data, both the model and the depth
maps were showing high-frequency, abrupt lateral changes that did not reflect
changes in the geological trends. Furthermore, the model showed two
anomalous velocity trends that were incongruously cross cutting the observed
geological trends: A fast velocity trend near the base of the present-day Bengal
slope and a slow velocity trend near the present-day shelf edge.

As expected, depth maps were impacted the most over these anomalous velocity
areas. These anomalous velocity trends were observed during the velocity
picking processes and considerable effort was spent to assure they did not
represent erroneous picks on the velocity semblance plots. It was concluded that
these velocity anomalies are a common phenomenon across steep slopes and a
result of ray paths seismic reflections follow across steep water bottom changes.

Considering the velocity issues of the raw stacking-velocity model, an alternative

model that allows editing of the stacking velocities and integration with the
mapped time surfaces was created for blocks 10 and 11. The new model is 3d-
based and utilizes a network of pseudo-wells and Linear Velocity Analysis (LVA).
Stacking velocities are extracted at the pseudo well locations and are edited.
Time mapped surfaces are brought in the 3D model and velocity intercept (V 0)
and velocity gradient (K) between surfaces are calculated and mapped. The
alternative model utilizes a top–down approach (water bottom to basement).
Velocity models can be created with the pseudowells only or in a combination
with LVA.

Four different alternative velocity models were built for blocks 10 and 11. Two of
these models utilized 105 pseudo wells with and without LVA and the other two
models utilized 55 of the most reliable wells, again, with and without LVA. The
four models were placed on a normal distribution and a Mean Velocity Model was
created. The Mean Velocity Modell was used for all seismic profile and time map
conversions.

Depth-converted seismic profiles and structure maps reveal different

characteristics for Blocks 10 and 11 than exhibited in the time domain. Horizons
that predominantly dip to the south on the time data reverse and dip to the north
on the depth sections. Rapid changes at the water depth are the primary reason
for these changes. There are still couple issues associated with the depth
conversion that the current model fails to address: First, the model can still not
account for the significant time sags associated with the hydrates and shallow
gas. Second, lack of data along the present-day slope (only 5 lines, 5 km apart)
fails to provide a robust velocity model that can correctly image below the
present-day shelf edge where rapid changes in water bottom creates challenges
beyond the ability of the coarse data set to resolve.

Depth Horizons / Isopach maps

The acoustic basement and the pre-collision sequences of the Paleocene,
Eocene and Oligocene section dip to the west/northwest, across blocks 10 and
11. The Paleocene/Eocene section has a very transparent nature in seismic and
thins in an easterly direction, reflecting the influence of Cretaceous basement
structures. There is no evidence of channel-levee deposition in this interval.

Reflection strength and continuity increases into the Oligocene section which
dips to the northwest. The Oligocene interval thins to the southeast, indicating
deposition from a northwesterly direction. Sedimentation rates picked up
considerably during the early collision, Miocene sequences. The Miocene section
can reach thicknesses greater than 5 km in block 10. Deposition was shifted in a
north to south orientation across blocks 10 and 11 during this interval. Channel-
levee deposition is visible throughout the Miocene section. It was this active
channel-levee depositional process that formed the subtle topographical relief
observed across the two blocks.

The north to south progradation of the Pliocene shelf edge, during the late
collision phase, triggered the formation of a series of channel-levee complexes
trending in a north to south direction across blocks 10 and 11. A number of large
scale (4-6 km wide) incised canyons at the shelf area provided the feeders for
deep water sediment transport. As the shelf edge prograded farther to the south
and closer to the northern boundary of the two blocks, failure of the shelf edge
resulted in slumping and large mass transport deposits.

Amplitude analysis
Hydrocarbon accumulations, particularly gas, in young Tertiary deltaic and
deepwater settings around the world are often characterized with seismic
amplitudes that exhibit a particular AVO response. Acquisition and processing of
the COP 2012 seismic data ensured data was collected and processed properly
for AVO analysis. The data was acquired with big guns (4580 in 3 ), long offsets
(10 km) and high fold (160-200). During the processing of the data, every effort
was made to preserve amplitudes.

Understanding the phase and polarity of the seismic data is one of the basic
requirements for AVO work. One of the early steps in the processing of the COP
2012 seismic was the zero-phase operator process. Through this processing
step, it was established that the new data have normal polarity and zero phase.
The phase of the data was subsequently confirmed with seismic and well-water
bottom ties, well synthetics, and the class III amplitude response of shallow gas
and BSR (Bottom Simulating Reflector).

Signal amplitude was preserved throughout the processing of the data with
amplitude spectral tests. These tests were performed prior to, and following,
filtering processes that targeted noise and multiples. Seismic amplitude response
of the processed data was analyzed on the final pre-stack migration gathers, in
order to determine the appropriate angle cuts for AVO analysis. Four angle cut
volumes were generated after angle trace data from 0 0 to 40 were eliminated
because of severe noise issues.

Because there are no wells in the deep water area of Bangladesh, theoretical
forward amplitude versus offset modeling was used to determine the most likely
response of wet and gas saturated sands. Rock physic parameters were fitted to
the model to match sand quality that would correspond to the relatively fast
observed stacking velocities in the area. Nonetheless, modeling results suggest
that gas saturated sands, normally pressured or slightly over pressured, should
reveal Class III AVO anomalies. This observation is in agreement with published
data from the Shwe field ( Myanmar).

Seismic angle cut volumes for the 2012 COP seismic were used to generate
amplitude gradient-offset plots, and screen for amplitude anomalies in blocks 10
and 11. Four areas were highlighted and classified as potential leads

Leads
Four leads have been identified on blocks 10 and 11. Only one of these leads,
Ghughu, is in the window defined as most prospective for biogenic gas. Babui,
Doel, and Tuntuni are all amplitude-related leads that sit at depths greater than
Ghughu and do not have well defined traps or well supported sand deposition
models. Ghughu is also amplitude supported but also has a robust sand
deposition model and well defined trapping mechanism. Ghughu sits along the
very northern margin of Block 11 and has not been comprehensively imaged by
ConocoPhillips’ initial seismic acquisition. Given that the area is structurally very
flat, all the leads on blocks 10 and 11 comprise stratigraphic traps.

Ghughu

The Ghughu Lead is characterized by a deepwater fan lobe complex oriented

north-south in the north-central portion of Block 11. The lead is split into two
components; an upper “G1” fan lobe complex and a lower “F4” lobe. Both
segments are Lower to lowermost Upper Pliocene in age. Although the two
objective reservoirs for Ghughu are not stacked, there is considerable overlap as
mapped on the current dataset.

G1

The G1 geological model is predicated on deposition of a frontal lobe complex at

the G1/G2 depositional level in the lowest portion of the Upper Pliocene. The
frontal lobe complex is laterally constrained by pre-existing channel levee
complexes both east and west of the active G1/G2 system. The entire lobe
system stretches N-S most of the length of Block 11 but the system thins,
becomes less constrained, less continuous and exhibits lower amplitude towards
the south. The higher amplitude, more mounded portion of the package is
located between 5-15 kilometers south of the Block 11/Block 7 boundary.

Overall, the G1 portion of the Ghughu Lead can be broken into an upper and
lower trough that display bidirectional downlap, mounded morphologies, and
compactional drape all of which are indicative of sand-prone facies in a lobe
setting. The sequence can reach 80 m in thickness but that interval includes
significant non-reservoir facies with low net-to-gross ratios. The top of the G1
lobe complex, smaller crevasse splays may be possible but the bulk of the
complex is topped by heterolithic to shale-prone levees and bypass channels
most likely filled with shale. Pelagic background sedimentation caps the entire
complex although portions of the seal are most likely removed and replaced by

Mass Transport Deposits (MTD) that result from slumps on the low-relief basin
floor.
The Ghughu trap is formed by the updip pinchout of the Ghughu lobe complex at
G1 level gradually to the south. The structure varies in elevation from 3800 m in
depth on the northern periphery of the lead to ~3600 m near the assumed
pinchout (200 meters of relief). The actual southern, updip terminus of the
prospective portion of the Ghughu fan is not seismically resolvable and has been
deduced from amplitude and subtle changes to the observed character of the G1
trough events. Laterally, the Ghughu trap is constrained by the G1 trough events
downlapping onto pre-existing structure created by earlier channel levee
complexes. This configuration is exhibited in the numerous strike and dip lines
accompanying this report. To the north, the trap is defined by the structurally low
area north of block 11 and the eventual pinchout of the Ghughu fan in the
proximal direction. The structurally low area to the north of block 11 is below the
modern day shelf and has associated depth conversion issues. The low
confidence in depth conversion on the north side of the Ghughu Lead and the
inability to seismically discern the southern (distal) pinchout of the Ghughu lobe
complex, highlights the risk associated with the trap component of the lead. This
high risk is among the primary reasons ConocoPhillips initiated the infill 1 x 1
seismic acquisition in blocks 7 and 11.

Reservoir quality for the G1 objective should be similar to Shwe Field in

Myanmar with porosity near 20%, moderately high N:G (35% – 70%) and a
thickness range of 25 – 40 m.

From an amplitude perspective, both the reservoir objectives on the Ghughu lead
exhibit Class III AVO anomalies. AVO class seismic diagrams have been
provided in the report. The anomalous amplitude, however, is not particularly
high when compared to background amplitude (up to 5:1 at highest) and, hence,
cannot be used to distinguish between the presence of gas or a simple lithologic
indicator.

Depending on criteria used to define trap, the G1 objective for Ghughu is an area
between 20,000 – 70,000 acres. This range is larger in aerial extent than the
Shwe Field in Myanmar. Unlike Shwe, the structure at Ghughu is very flat which
impacts the trap yielding an overall chance of success (Ps) of 18%. Like Shwe,
the hydrocarbon source is expected to be biogenic which adds to the risk of the
lead.

F4

The F4 objective is a stratigraphically lower secondary target for the Ghughu

Lead. The F4 is within the upper portion of the Lower Pliocene (~3.8 mya).
Unlike the G1 lobe complex that was deposited between two pre-existing north-

south channel-complexes, the F4 lobe appears to have been deposited in a

topographic low with a clearly defined paleotopographic high oriented E-W
blocking progradation to the south. The resulting lobe is represented by a less
extensive but well defined high amplitude trough with a clear termination to the
south. The southern extension of the trap does not extend nearly as far to the
south as the G1 event with the entire trap within 10 km of the northern border of
block 11.

The F4 event is about 250 meters lower than the G1 event and smaller in overall
areal extent. The lower depth results in slightly lower chance of success (Ps =
15%).

Other Leads

In addition to Ghughu, three additional leads have been identified in Blocks 10

and 11. These leads are stratigraphically older than Ghughu and occur in similar
depositional settings within the upper Miocene. The stratigraphic position of
these leads make them considerably deeper than Ghughu. As a result of depths
> 4000 m for each lead, the risk associated with gas solubility (and potential lack
of a free gas column) is significantly higher than it is for Ghughu for biogenic gas
accumulations.

These additional leads are single-cycle features on seismic that exhibit some
Class II AVO. While Doel, in particular, has multiple amplitude objectives, the
trap and reservoir models for Babui, Tuntuni and Doel are not as robust as for the
Ghughu lead. Given the very high risk for these leads as a result of their position
at or below the apparent biogenic gas floor, and the lack of a robust trap and
reservoir model, ConocoPhillips has not prepared resource estimates for these
leads.

Facies Mapping
ConocoPhillips undertook extensive facies mapping of the G1 and G2 levels
(Lower to Upper Pliocene) in an effort to identify features similar to the Ghughu
Lead in the most prospective section for biogenic gas (above 80 o C). The results
of this work are shown in the final report. Several features with
were 1) significantly smaller than the Ghughu Lead and/or 2) exhibited lower
overall amplitudes.

Other Leads
Three other lead areas were recognized in Blocks 10 and 11 in addition to the
Ghughu Lead. Similar to the Ghughu Lead, all leads are stratigraphic in nature
and rely on seismic amplitudes for reservoir, seal and trap definition.
Stratigraphically, the Ghughu Lead is reservoired in the youngest section of all
four leads identified in the two blocks. The other three leads have targets ranging
in age from Upper Miocene (F2) to Lower Pliocene (F3.7). The older (deeper)
targets would also require depths to 4500m to 5800m to test, when compared to
Ghughu targets with reservoir objectives less than 4000m.

All leads would require additional seismic coverage, because the current 5 x 5
km grid does not adequately address the nature of the stratigraphic plays.
Particularly in the case of the Doel and Babui leads, insufficient current seismic
coverage imparts additional uncertainty to the overall risk.

Ghughu Prospect: 2014 Infill Evaluation

Seismic Acquisition
JUSTIFICATION

Evaluation and ranking of the leads identified in blocks 10 and 11 from the initial
2D seismic program led to an emphasis for further investigation of the Ghughu
lead. The relatively shallow stratigraphic targets for this lead are within the
biogenic gas window which is the primary charge mechanism in the Shwe Field
in Myanmar. Stacked exploration targets and a favorable amplitude response
placed the lead at the top of the Block 10 and 11 inventory for further evaluation.
Most of the Ghughu lead is located under the present-day continental slope
which significantly impacts seismic imaging in the subsurface. The three original
north-south lines (5 km x 5 km program) that defined the Ghughu lead, terminate
to the north at the base of the present -day slope and, consequently, do not
provide adequate seismic coverage to delineate the northern extent and nature
of the northern portion of the Ghughu trap.

OBJECTIVES

A 1 km x 1 km grid was designed to further evaluate the Ghughu lead. Objectives

of the new seismic program were: A) Improve imaging of the trap particularly in
the challenging area under the present-day slope B) better definition of the
facies distribution that comprise the Ghughu lobe complex, C) a more robust
analysis of the amplitudes associated with the target horizons, D) facilitate a
comprehensive resource assessment of the Ghughu lead and E) a better
understanding technical and commercial risk.

PROGRAM SPECIFICATIONS

The north – south lines of the infill seismic program (~ 51 km) were extended far
enough north of the present-day shelf break to provide the optimal subsurface
image under the steep slope. East-west (Dip) lines were extended to 31 km in
length in order to best image the east – west stratigraphic limits of the trap. The
data were processed both in time and depth with amplitudes preserved for AVO
analysis. BGP Company, which acquired the 2012 blocks 10 and 11 seismic
program, was contracted for the 2013 infill seismic acquisition. A total of 87 2D
lines, 3186 km full fold, were acquired between August 4 and September 20,
2013. This acquisition was the first seismic program acquired successfully in the
Bay of Bengal during monsoon season. Data were recorded to 10 seconds
utilizing 4260 cubic inch guns. As in the 2012 seismic program, a 10-km
streamer was used for the acquisition. This long offset allowed reliable data
collection that was suitable for AVO work. Onboard processing, to the brute
stack stage provided real-time quality check during acquisition. Learnings from
the brute stack processing were carried through to the processing flow.

ENVIRONMENT AND SAFETY

There were no safety incidents reported during the acquisition of the program.
COP personnel went through a very comprehensive safety audit of the
acquisition vessel, BGP Challenger, prior to its departure to the operations site. A
MMO (marine mammal observer) specialist was onboard the acquisition vessel
throughout the operation to ensure marine species were not affected by the
seismic operations.

Seismic Processing
The tender document for the processing of the seismic infill data was sent to five
suppliers (WesternGeco, CGG Veritas, TGS, Petroleum Geo-Services ASA
(PGS) and ION/GX Technology). TGS was awarded the contract based on
technical and business analysis of the received bids. Processing work was done
in Houston and lasted seven months (November 2013 to May 2014).
ConocoPhillips personnel supervised both the time imaging and depth imaging of
the project. Processing objectives were communicated to TGS prior to the
initiation of the processing task. Special emphasis was placed on amplitude
preservation in every step of the processing flow, because of the stratigraphic
nature and potential relation between amplitudes and fluid content of the Ghughu
lead targets.

TIME PROCESSING

At the pre-processing phase, the 2013 infill data were merged with the 2012
data, where appropriate, and the zero phase of the data was established. Noise
was attacked on the data both on a shot – receiver domain and CMP (common
mid - point) offset domain. Multiple removal used a combination of Tau-p and
SRME for data in water depths less than 1.5 seconds. Data in water depths
greater than 1.5 seconds had a combination of SRME and RADON application
for multiple removal. Amplitude spectrum analysis was performed prior to and
after noise and multiple removal in order to ensure signal was not altered.
At the time imaging phase, stacking velocities picked on 1 km spacing were used
for building the initial velocity field. Migrated gathers were corrected for residual
move-out and ETA corrections to account for anisotropy effects. The final
corrected gathers were muted and stacked to provide the PSTM sections. In
addition to full fold PSTM stacks, angle gathers were cut and partial stacks were
made for four angle ranges, similarly to the 2012 blocks 10 and 11 seismic. The
four partial angle stacks are: Near volume ( 40 – 170) , Mid volume (170 – 300),
Far volume ( 300 – 430 ) and Ultra – far ( 430 - 560).
DEPTH IMAGING

The final smoothed PSTM velocity model was used to generate the initial velocity
model for the depth imaging and the creation of the initial depth gathers. Three
iterations of isotropic Kirchhoff PSDM were run. After each iteration of migration,
the migrated gathers were used for tomographic update to derive the velocity for
next iteration of PSDM (with 5 m depth step and maximum frequency 45Hz). The
tomography inputs are the non-flatness of the gathers (residual curvature) and
dips measured from the PSDM stack. Updated velocity values look to minimize
the non-flatness of the gathers in each run. The final updated velocity model was
used for final migration (with 10 m depth step, maximum frequency 65 Hz and
migration aperture of 8000m). Residual multiples were targeted and removed in
each tomographic run. Residual moveout correction was applied to the final
migrated gathers before they were trimmed and stacked for the enhanced PSDM
volume. Angle stacks, similar to those of the time processing, were also created
for the depth data.

COP created three in-house additional volumes which are identified in the
seismic volume inventory with the suffix 3DBased . The volumes were created in
order to correct seismic mistie problems between individual lines on volumes
created by TGS. The TGS depth data were converted to time using the 2-D
velocity model supplied by TGS for each line. These new time lines were
converted back to depth using the smoothed 3D velocity model that TGS
generated as part of the depth imaging. These redepth volumes were the primary
dataset used by ConocoPhillips’s for structural and stratigraphic interpretation as
well as the amplitude analysis.

AVO/Amplitude Analysis
The first step in the evaluation process of the 2013 infill seismic was a direct
comparison with the 2012 acquired 2D seismic. Pieces of eight lines from the
original 2012 2D seismic acquisition were merged and reprocessed, both in time
and depth, with the 2013 infill seismic. These eight lines provided the basis for
amplitude comparison between the two surveys. G1 event amplitudes were
extracted on the original 2012 PSTM data and the same G1 amplitudes were
extracted on the eight lines of the 2013 PSTM data using the same extraction
parameters. Amplitudes from the two extractions were gridded with the same
parameters and the two grids were subtracted. The difference grid was found to
be near zero indicating a very good amplitude match between the 2012 PSTM
and the 2013 PSTM programs.

The next step in the amplitude analysis was a comparison between the 2013
PSTM amplitudes to the 2013 PSDM amplitudes. Amplitudes for the same
horizons were extracted both from the time and depth data using the same
extraction windows. Amplitudes from each set were gridded with the same
parameters and grids were compared. Amplitude comparison indicates that both
data sets show identical trends, although absolute scales are different. 2013
PSTM amplitude data appear to be twice as strong as the equivalent 2013 PSDM
data. PSDM data also appear to be less impacted by noise than the PSTM and
therefore were chosen as the data set for further amplitude analysis.

Full migrated gathers of the 2013 Infill PSDM data evaluated in order to
determine if gather conditioning is needed. Although gathers, for the most part,
appear to be flat, it was recommended to further process the data with RMO
(Residual Move Out) and Trim statics prior to AVO analysis. Partial stacks of the
data were made after conditioning the depth gathers. Angle stacks were made for
40 – 170 (Nears) and 250 – 350 (Fars) to be used for the AVO analysis.

A substantial part of AVO analysis is establishing the background trend for

comparison of amplitude anomalies. Background trends were analyzed for four
different windows (3 lines) both above and below the G1 and F4 events.
Assuming Vp/ Vs =2, the mean background gradient of the four windows
suggested a scaling of 1.1 should be applied to the far data set.

Background amplitudes and amplitude anomalies for the G1 and F4 targets were
posted on an amplitude intercept versus amplitude gradient plot in order to
determine the AVO class for the G1 and F4 anomalies. It was found that G1 and
F4 amplitude anomalies fall in the AVO class III and class IV quadrants on the
plot. Several forward models were run using F4 amplitudes in order to
determine the impact of tuning effect on amplitude and to determine if high
negative impedance amplitudes thought to represent sands and gas-filled sands
were potentially the result of the unrelated phenomena (e.g., soft shale, hard
layer with high amplitude side lobes). Modelling has concluded that tuning
thickness can have an impact on recorded amplitudes up to as much as 1.5
times the background, but tuning alone cannot account for amplitudes that
exceed this limit. Modeling soft shale responses suggested that these could not
replicate recorded amplitude anomalies, and similarly side lobes of hard events
failed to duplicate observed amplitudes. Both sand with high gas saturation and
high porosity wet sands, however, can reproduce high amplitude anomalies
similar to the ones observed on the seismic records.

Seismic Interpretation
Depth Maps/Isopach Maps/AVO Analysis

This section in the Final Report includes depth converted structure maps isopach
maps for the primary mapped events for the Ghughu Prospect infill evaluation.
These events are primarily in the Upper Miocene through the Upper Pliocene.
Only those events believed to be within prospective intervals or stratigraphically
higher/lower events that may have some impact on the understanding of the
distribution of Pliocene reservoir facies were mapped. Of critical importance is
the existence and location of an extensive Mass Transport Complex bounded on
the base by a prominent erosive scarp directly under the Ghughu Prospect. This
feature was not imaged well on the coarser 2012 seismic survey and a more in
depth discussion will follow in the Ghughu Prospect discussion.

Seismic Horizons mapped in this session are as follows:

Pliocene (Ghughu Prospect)

G1 Trough 3 Depth Structure Map

G1 Trough 2 Depth Structure Map
G1 Peak 2 Depth Structure Map
G1 Basal Trough Depth Structure Map
G1 Basal Peak Depth Structure Map
Intra G1-F4 Scarp Depth Structure Map
F4 Trough Depth Structure Map

Miocene

F3.5 Depth Structure Map

Isopach Maps

G1 Peak 2 to Trough 2 Thickness

G1 Basal Peak to Basal Trough Thickness
F4 Peak to Trough (Total) Thickness
F4 Main Lobe Thickness Thickness

Ghughu Prospect
Geological Model

G1 Basal Trough

The post-infill geological model is very similar to the original Ghughu geological
model but the denser seismic grid has resulted in a more complex interpretation.
The original model envisioned a deepwater turbidite lobe complex deposited in a
bathymetric low between pre-existing channel levee complexes. The Ghughu
trap was consequently provided by stratigraphic terminations onto the channel-
levee complexes to the east and west, structural dip to the north and the gradual
transition from proximal reservoir rock in the northern part of the lobe complex to
non reservoir rock in the southern more distal portion of the complex.

The primary differences between the present post-infill geological model and the
original Ghughu model are a) the presence and impact of the Intra F4-G1 Mass
Transport Complex and b) the heterogeneity in the lobe complex created by
gravity processes that tend to impact reservoir distribution and quality. The latter
are clearly evident as a function of amplitude and AVO where present.

The initial accommodation space for the Ghughu lobe complex is created by the
presence of the underlying Intra F4-G1 Mass Transport Complex that failed just
prior to G1 lobe deposition. This is a very large mass transport complex that
runs the entire dip length of the Ghughu prospect and is manifested in the
southern portion of Block 11 by small toe thrusts that create the topography that
effectively constrains the extent of G1 lobe deposition to the south. The mass
transport complex appears to have failed from several different point but only the
central portion of the complex was uniquely located to receive sand deposition
due after up-system avulsion of the a pre-existing channel levee feature. The
feeder channel for the lobe complex is mappable on the infill data.

The distribution and timing of lobes within main G1 Basal Trough reservoir unit of
the Ghughu lobe complex is described in the accompanying slides. Mapping of
the individual lobes was based on amplitude, stratal terminations, presence of
channel systems that exploit topographic lows between individual lobes, and
other seismic-stratigraphic relationships. There are essentially 3 lobes (lobes 1,
2 and 3) that contain appreciable reservoir rock as identified by the presence of
high amplitude and AVO Class III or IV signature. Each lobe has a high
reservoir quality proximal portion and lower reservoir quality distal section.

Lobe 1 was the first lobe to be deposited occupies the initial accommodation
created by slumping of the underlying Intra G1-F4 mass transport complex. This
lobe contains the most area within Ghughu prospect with contiguous high
amplitude and AVO Class III-IV AVO signature. Lobe 2 deposition was
compensationally offset from Lobe 1. Much of the SW portion of this lobe
slumped after deposition and can be easily recognized in seismic by the rugose
nature of the top event, dim amplitude and the obvious scarp separating the
slumped portion of the lobe with the in situ portion (especially along the eastern
portion of the slump). The slumped feature is not included in volumetric
assessments due to its overall low amplitude and lack of AVO signature.

Similarly, post lobe 2 deposition in the thickest portion of the lobe complex, a
portion of the lobe slumped and created two parallel mass transport complexes
between lobes 2 and 3. The slumped area is one of the thicker portions of the
overall Ghughu lobe complex reaching a thickness of up to 70 meters. On the
G1 Basal Trough amplitude map, high negative amplitudes are distributed as an
inverted V converging in the northern portion of lobe complex with a very low
amplitude area between the two wings of the V in the center of the complex in an
isopach thick. Initially, seismic tuning was considered as an alternative
explanation for the amplitude distribution described above. Tuning models
indicate that tuning occurs at thinner thicknesses than expected for the higher
amplitude portions of the lobe complexes (based on isopach maps). Additionally,
some of the very thick (70 m) portions of the lobe complex (and adjacent to the
slump blocks) display very high amplitude. Consequently, while there is certainly
contribution from tuning to the overall amplitude distribution in the lobe complex,
it is not the primary driver for the observed distribution.

As in the 2012 seismic, the infill data clearly shows that amplitudes within the
complex tend to diminish and become less continuous to the south into the distal
portion of the complex. Large contiguous high amplitude areas do not exist
outside of lobes 1,2 and 3 and the majority of the Ghughu GIP resources occur
within these three critical lobes. Additionally, a modest conformance between
amplitude and structure in the northern portion provides a limit of GIP on the
northern portion of the feature.

G1 Trough 2

The G1 Trough 2 reservoir is the second (later) phase of lobe development at

Ghughu prospect. There is a higher risk that reservoir rocks in this phase may
be deposited in part as levee complexes attached to the large channel-levee
systems that traverse blocks 10 and 11. G1 Trough 2 lobes tend to fill in the
topographic lows created by G1 Basal Trough lobe deposition. Consequently,
the lobes are compensational rather than stacked. Unlike the Basal Trough, the
upper trough amplitudes have no conformance to structure. Overall amplitude is
not as high or contiguous in the Upper Trough as the Basal Trough and tends to
oriented linearly along the isopach axes of the Upper Trough sands.

F4

F4 distribution is similar to the original seismic interpretation from the 2012 data.
Similar to the overlying G1 Basal Trough, the F4 amplitudes are more
discontinuous suggesting more reservoir heterogeneity than in the original
evaluation. While the original evaluation predicted the influence of a pre-existing
high at the south end of the F4 lobe ponding reservoir, the new data suggests
that the F4 may have extended further to the south but has been truncated by the
overlying mass transport complex which created the accommodation space for
the G1 Basal Trough. The more recent infill depth conversion and interpretation
indicate that F4 reservoir depth is comparable to the original interpretation and,
consequently, higher risk for free gas preservation in the reservoir.

Risk and Resource

The overall post-infill Ghughu Prospect risk remains about the same as the
original prospect (18% chance of success) but the in place resource estimate has
dropped significantly. The lower estimate is partially a function of a denser
seismic grid which allows less extrapolation but also due to the existence of
significantly more expected heterogeneity in the lobe complex than predicted in
the original model. Another smaller contribution to lower GIP expectations is the
continued release of information from Shwe that indicates that the primary anlog
reservoir is more heterogeneous than previously expected.

The highest risk component of the Ghughu Prospect is what ConocoPhillips

terms as Hydrocarbon Generation, Migration and Timing. A proven thermogenic
source rock does not exist in the deep water portion of the Bengal Fan and the
nearest analog (Shwe Field) has a proven biogenic source. Ghughu Prospect is
about 400 meters deeper than Shwe and on the deep end of biogenic gas fields
found throughout the world. The presence of a free gas phase due to increased
gas solubility (relative to Shwe) is the highest risk for the main reservoir at
Ghughu. This risk is of preserving a free gas phase is greater for the deeper F4
reservoir. Characteristic Seismic Amplitude and AVO signatures are expected
(and observed) at Ghughu but these cannot differentiate between undersaturated
gas within the lobe complex and a free gas phase.

Resources were calculated for the main G1 Basal Trough reservoir at the
Ghughu Prospect. Because of the above-mentioned observations, the estimated
Gas In-Place resources for the prospect are significantly lower than the original
volumes. In addition to gross volume, which was estimated from seismic
interpretation and gridding, the reservoir and fluid parameter ranges used to
calculate Ghughu resources were estimated based on published information
available from Shwe Field and from worldwide deepwater analog systems. GIP
volumes for the F4 and G1 Trough 2 reservoirs are considered extremely high
risk and, consequently, are considered only as upside.

Summary

ConocoPhillips has acquired, processed and interpreted two seismic programs in

the northern Bay of Bengals in Bangladesh Blocks 10 and 11. The seismic data
shows a structurally quiescent area with deep water fan deposition basinward of
Pliocene shelf edge. With the absence of trap-defining structures in Blocks 10
and 11, prospective hydrocarbon-bearing targets are limited to stratgraphic traps
in fan lobe systems that can be delineated by dense 2D or 3D seismic.
Stratigraphic traps are, by nature, more risk prone than structurally defined traps
and due to the absence of a known source rock, plays in this portion of the basin
carry a significant risk of failure. The biogenic gas component of the play (e.g.,
Shwe Field and fields on northern Indian Bengal Shelf) acts to limit the
prospective depth window.

The Ghughu Prospect is a high risk prospect targeting a Pliocene (G1) Turbidite
lobe complex in a semi-confined setting between two pre-existing Channel Levee
Complexes. While the Ghughu deepwater fan system can be mapped across
much of Block 11, it is believed that high quality reservoir exist only in the
proximal (northernmost) portion of the lobe complex where far offset stack
amplitude at reservoir level is strongest and is accompanied by a strong Class III
AVO anomaly. It is in this portion of the fan complex that accommodation space
was created as a mappable channel system at the slope/basin margin avulsed
into the paleotopographic low depositing what appears to be reservoir sands in
the northern portion of Block 11 at the G1 level. AVO analysis indicates an
anomaly in the northern portion of Block 11 but AVO in itself is not sufficient to
differentiate between free gas and undersaturated gas in the reservoir and,
hence, does not de-risk the prospect. As assessed by ConocoPhillips, the
expected gas resource range, constrained by the extent of the amplitude
anomaly, is modest in size relative to the overall cost of exploration, development
and gas transportation in the deep water environment.