1. Seismic Data Driven Reservoir Services FORT CHADBOURNE 3-D Coke and Runnels Counties,TX ODOM LIME AND GRAY SAND

2. Comments 20 wells submitted for multimineral evaluation, 72 wells used for porosity validation. 3 wells with no sonic log, correlations were applied (FCOLU_A_106, FCOLU_17_11 and FCOLU_51_33). 4 Wells with shear velocity (FCOLU_08_30, FCOLU_51_32, FCOLU_A_107 and FCOLU_A_110). A shear velocity model was calibrated and applied to other 16 wells. Main interval of interest: ODOM LIME, secondary intervals: GRAY SAND and CAMBRIAN SAND. Main clay types used for modeling: Illite and Chlorite, Sandstone, Limestone, Dolomite and Feldspar were used in also in the modeling. Fluids: water 108.000 ppm of salinity and OIL of 30 API.

3. Lithology Review – Clays type Odom lime Gray sand Ratio Neutron / Density porosity Difference Neutron – Density porosity (v/v) Z axis: well number Z axis: well number Chlorite trend Illite trend Chlorite trend Illite trend

4. Lithology Review – Matrix lithology Odom lime Gray sand Ratio Neutron / Density porosity Difference Neutron – Density porosity (v/v) Z axis: well number Z axis: well number Clean points in Limestone region, some sandstone and dolomite can be expected Clean points between sandstone and limestone region, both lithologies can be expected

5. Summary of Reservoir Properties (ODOM) WELL NAME Gross / Net (G/N) Thickness (ft) Effec. Porosity/ Total Porosity (%) Sw (%) Petrophysical Evaluation (see attachments) FCOLU_08_27 48 / 39 (0.81) 8.1-13.6 / 8.6-14.2 30-55 FCOLU_08_30 48 / 27 (0.56) 6-14 / 6.5-14 20-50 FCOLU_08_31 47 / 27 (0.57) 5.3-13 / 5.6-13 50 FCOLU_13_87 54 / 8 (0.15) 6.8-8.9 / 7-8.9 50-65

6. Summary of Reservoir Properties (ODOM) WELL NAME Gross / Net (G/N) Thickness (ft) Effec. Porosity/ Total Porosity (%) Sw (%) Petrophysical Evaluation (see attachments) FCOLU_13_93 45 / 24 (0.53) 6-7.6 / 6-7.8 20-30 FCOLU_13_95 44 / 4 (0.09) 6-10 / 6-10 35 FCOLU_17_11 42 / 2 (0.05) 6.4 / 6.5 38 FCOLU_26_18 43 / 21 (0.49) 7.4-11.8 / 7.4-11.8 10-40

7. Summary of Reservoir Properties (ODOM) WELL NAME Gross / Net (G/N) Thickness (ft) Effec. Porosity/ Total Porosity (%) Sw (%) Petrophysical Evaluation (see attachments) FCOLU_33_12 54 / 20 (0.37) 6.5-10 / 6.6-11 15-38 FCOLU_50_01 57 / 0 (0) -- FCOLU_51_31 51 / 25 (0.49) 6.3-9.7 / 6.5-9.9 36-50 FCOLU_51_32 61 / 41 (0.67) 6-12.5 / 6.6-13 36-60

8. Summary of Reservoir Properties (ODOM) WELL NAME Gross / Net (G/N) Thickness (ft) Effec. Porosity/ Total Porosity (%) Sw (%) Petrophysical Evaluation (see attachments) FCOLU_51_33 50 / 12 (0.24) 6.2-7.8 / 6.6-7.8 55-70 FCOLU_52_02 86 / 38 (0.44) 6.1-12.5 / 6.6-12.7 70-100 FCOLU_8_33 52 / 17 (0.33) 6.2-10 / 7-11 23-32 FCOLU_A_106 47 / 12 (0.26) 6.1-9.1 / 6.1-9.1 45-85

9. Summary of Reservoir Properties (ODOM) WELL NAME Gross / Net (G/N) Thickness (ft) Effec. Porosity/ Total Porosity (%) Sw (%) Petrophysical Evaluation (see attachments) FCOLU_A_107 52 / 30 (0.58) 6-11.3 / 6.2-11.5 33-78 FCOLU_A_110 49 / 26 (0.53) 6.1-13 / 6.7-13.5 65-15 MCDONALD_1 50 / 15 (0.3) 6-10 / 6.3-12.1 40-100 SALLIE_ODOM_101 44 / 0 (0) --

10. Summary of Reservoir Properties (GRAY) WELL NAME Gross / Net (G/N) Thickness (ft) Effec. Porosity/ Total Porosity (%) Sw (%) Petrophysical Evaluation (see attachments) FCOLU_08_27 34 / 32 (0.94) 7-10 / 10-13 90 FCOLU_08_30 9 / 9 (1) 7-12.7 / 10-13.4 80 FCOLU_08_31 39 / 19 (0.49) 6.6-13 / 8-15 90 FCOLU_13_87 19 / 15 (0.79) 7-12.8 / 10-14.3 85 FCOLU_13_93 22 / 6 (0.27) 8-12 / 11-12 27 FCOLU_13_95 18 / 15 (0.83) 10-12.8 / 11-13.2 67-85

11. Summary of Reservoir Properties (GRAY) WELL NAME Gross / Net (G/N) Thickness (ft) Effec. Porosity/ Total Porosity (%) Sw (%) Petrophysical Evaluation (see attachments) FCOLU_17_11 51 / 19 (0.37) 7-10 / 10-13 54-100 FCOLU_26_18 13 / 5 (0.38) 8-13.4 / 11-14.9 95 FCOLU_33_12 41 / 10 (0.24) 6-9 / 9.9-12.1 80 FCOLU_50_01 15 / 0 (0) -- FCOLU_51_31 9 / 6 (0.67) 8-10.7 / 12-13.9 85 FCOLU_51_32 26 / 10 (0.38) 7-11.4 / 8.7-11.4 80

12. Summary of Reservoir Properties (GRAY) WELL NAME Gross / Net (G/N) Thickness (ft) Effec. Porosity/ Total Porosity (%) Sw (%) Petrophysical Evaluation (see attachments) FCOLU_51_33 7 / 3 (0.43) 7 / 8.2 100 FCOLU_52_02 NO SAND - -- FCOLU_8_33 28 / 17 (0.61) 8-12.4 / 10-14.4 68 FCOLU_A_106 16 / 12 (0.75) 8-11.1 / 11-12.7 100 FCOLU_A_107 30 / 12 (0.4) 8.3-12.4 / 12.2-14.5 100 FCOLU_A_110 31 / 14 (0.45) 6-9.2 / 8.4-12.3 100

13. Summary of Reservoir Properties (GRAY) WELL NAME Gross / Net (G/N) Thickness (ft) Effec. Porosity/ Total Porosity (%) Sw (%) Petrophysical Evaluation (see attachments) MCDONALD_1 24 / 18 (0.75) 7-13 / 9-13 100 SALLIE_ODOM_101 61 / 59 (0.96) 11 / 12 30-100

14. Facies and elastic properties analysis

15. Facies analysis 6 facies were determined and facies No 7 was included to differentiate badhole readings. The productive facies will be facies No. 5 and 6. Elastic properties analysis was done including Odom lime and Gray sand together including the shale in the middle and some points above Gray Sand and below Odom lime. Elastic properties analysis was done in the 4 wells with Shear recorded data.

16. Shear wave estimation Shear wave estimation was based in a correlation calibrated in the 4 wells with recorded shear data: FCOLU_08_30, FCOLU_51_32, FCOLU_A_107 and FCOLU_A_110. Velc (ft/s) Vels (ft/s) Z-axis: facies Correlation in Odom lime Correlation in Gray sand

17. Shear wave estimation Velc (ft/s) Vels (ft/s) Z-axis: facies Correlation in Odom lime Correlation in Gray sand Z-axis: facies 4 wells recorded shear4 wells estimated shear13 wells estimated shear

18. AI vs. POIS, facies analysis 0 - POIS - 0.5 20000 - AI (ft/s.g/c3) - 60000 Z-axis: facies Background shale (purple) has very low acoustic impedance. Porous sandstone (yellow) has the lowest Poisson’s ratio and the presence of shale in sands (green) increases the Poisson’s ratio, making them hard to differentiated from the background.

19. AI vs. POIS, facies analysis 0 - POIS - 0.5 20000 - AI (ft/s.g/c3) - 60000 Z-axis: facies When carbonate cement is present in sands (light blue), the Poisson’s ratio becomes higher as well as the acoustic impedance. Placing the points in an transition position between the carbonate and sandstone facies. No porosity limestone (dark blue) have the highest acoustic impedance, the acoustic impedance gets lower when porosity is present (orange).

20. AI vs. POIS, facies analysis 0 - POIS - 0.5 20000 - AI (ft/s.g/c3) - 60000 Z-axis: facies While Poisson’s ratio differentiate the porous sands from the shales and cemented sandstones. Acoustic impedance differentiate the carbonate from the sandstone facies.

21. AI vs. POIS, facies analysis 0 - POIS - 0.5 20000 - AI (ft/s.g/c3) - 60000 Z-axis: facies With in the carbonates the lower the acoustic impedance the higher the porosity. This can be seen in more detail in the next slide.

22. AI vs. POIS, analysis 0 - POIS - 0.5 20000 - AI (ft/s.g/c3) - 60000 Z-axis: CalciteZ-axis: QuartzZ-axis: Clay Z-axis: PHIT Z-axis: PHIE Porosity trend in carbonates (less AI) Porosity trend in sandstones (less POIS) Shale increase (more POIS and less AI)

23. AI vs. POIS, analysis 0 - POIS - 0.5 20000 - AI (ft/s.g/c3) - 60000 Z-axis: CalciteZ-axis: QuartzZ-axis: Clay Z-axis: PHIT Z-axis: PHIE Porosity trend in carbonates (less AI) Porosity trend in sandstones (less POIS)

24. LambdaRho vs. MuRho 0 - LambdaRho - 250 0 - MuRho - 100 Z-axis: facies LambdaRho can separate carbonates (dark blue and orange) from sandstones, while MuRho will help to differentiate sand (yellow) from shale (purple) and shally sands (green). LambdaRho vs. MuRho crossplot is also very useful to differentiate facies.

25. LambdaRho vs. MuRho 0 - LambdaRho - 250 0 - MuRho - 100 Z-axis: CalciteZ-axis: QuartzZ-axis: Clay Z-axis: PHIT Z-axis: PHIE LambdaRho it’s highly affected by porosity in sandstone, while in carbonates both LambdaRho and MuRho has an important effect. Porosity trend in carbonates Porosity trend in sandstones Shale trend in sandstones

26. LambdaRho vs. MuRho 0 - LambdaRho - 250 0 - MuRho - 100 Z-axis: CalciteZ-axis: QuartzZ-axis: Clay Z-axis: PHIT Z-axis: PHIE LambdaRho it’s highly affected by porosity in sandstone, while in carbonates both LambdaRho and MuRho has an important effect. Porosity trend in carbonates Porosity trend in sandstones

27. AI vs. EI30 (30 degrees), analysis Z-axis: CalciteZ-axis: QuartzZ-axis: Clay Z-axis: PHIT Z-axis: PHIE Elastic impedance in this study doesn’t give too much help to differentiate facies and petrophysical properties. 20000 - AI (ft/s.g/c3) - 60000 20000 - EI30 (ft/s.g/c3) - 60000

28. ATTACHMENTS

29. Petrophysical Properties - Well FCOLU_08_27 Lithology Depth (ft) Porosity Sw

30. Petrophysical Properties - Well FCOLU_08_30 Lithology Depth (ft) Porosity Sw

31. Petrophysical Properties - Well FCOLU_08_31 Lithology Depth (ft) Porosity Sw

32. Petrophysical Properties - Well FCOLU_13_87 Lithology Depth (ft) Porosity Sw

33. Petrophysical Properties - Well FCOLU_13_93 Lithology Depth (ft) Porosity Sw

34. Petrophysical Properties - Well FCOLU_13_95 Lithology Depth (ft) Porosity Sw

35. Petrophysical Properties - Well FCOLU_17_11 Lithology Depth (ft) Porosity Sw

36. Petrophysical Properties - Well FCOLU_26_18 Lithology Depth (ft) Porosity Sw

37. Petrophysical Properties - Well FCOLU_33_12 Lithology Depth (ft) Porosity Sw

38. Petrophysical Properties - Well FCOLU_50_01 Lithology Depth (ft) Porosity Sw

39. Petrophysical Properties - Well FCOLU_51_31 Lithology Depth (ft) Porosity Sw

40. Petrophysical Properties - Well FCOLU_51_32 Lithology Depth (ft) Porosity Sw

41. Petrophysical Properties - Well FCOLU_51_33 Lithology Depth (ft) Porosity Sw

42. Petrophysical Properties - Well FCOLU_8_33 Lithology Depth (ft) Porosity Sw

43. Petrophysical Properties - Well FCOLU_A_106 Lithology Depth (ft) Porosity Sw

44. Petrophysical Properties - Well FCOLU_A_107 Lithology Depth (ft) Porosity Sw

45. Petrophysical Properties - Well FCOLU_A_110 Lithology Depth (ft) Porosity Sw

46. Petrophysical Properties - Well MCDONALD_1 Lithology Depth (ft) Porosity Sw

47. Petrophysical Properties - Well SALLIE_ODOM_101 Lithology Depth (ft) Porosity Sw