JKX Oil & GasDriving Ukraine’s Gas Potential

Tom ReedCEOOil Capital, London 11 May, 2017

Disclaimer

The information contained in these presentation materials (the “Presentation”) has been prepared by JKX Oil & Gas plc (the “Company”).This Presentation is being made for information purposes only and does not constitute an offer or invitation for the sale or purchase ofsecurities in the Company or any of the assets described in it nor shall they nor any part of them form the basis of or be relied on inconnection with, or act as any inducement to enter into, any contract or commitment whatsoever or otherwise engage in any investmentactivity (including within the meaning specified in section 21 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 as amended).

The information in this Presentation does not purport to be comprehensive and has not been independently verified. While thisinformation has been prepared in good faith, no representation or warranty, express or implied, is or will be made and no responsibility orliability is or will be accepted by the Company or any of its officers, employees, agents or advisers as to, or in relation to, the accuracy orcompleteness of this Presentation, and any such liability is expressly disclaimed. In particular, but without prejudice to the generality ofthe foregoing, no representation or warranty is given as to the achievement or reasonableness of any management estimates orprospects contained in this Presentation.

Such statements, estimates and forecasts reflect various assumptions made by the management of the Company and their currentbeliefs, which may or may not prove to be correct. A number of factors could cause actual results to differ materially from the potentialresults discussed in such forward-looking statements, estimates and forecasts including: changes in general economic and marketconditions, changes in the regulatory environment, business and operational risks and other risk factors. Past performance is not a guideto future performance. Statements contained in this document regarding past trends or activities should not be taken as a representationor warranty, express or implied, that such trends or activities will continue in the future. No statement in this document is intended to be aprofit forecast. You should not place reliance on forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this document.

The Presentation is not a prospectus nor has it been approved by the London Stock Exchange plc or by any authority which could be acompetent authority for the purposes of the Prospectus Directive (Directive 2003/71/EC). This Presentation has not been approved by anauthorised person for the purposes of section 21 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

The information contained in this Presentation is subject to change, completion or amendment without notice and is subject toverification.

Recipients of this Presentation in jurisdictions outside the UK should inform themselves about and observe any applicable legalrequirements. This Presentation does not constitute an offer to sell or an invitation to purchase securities in any jurisdiction.You will be taken to have represented, warranted and undertaken to the Company that: (i) you have read and agree to comply with thecontents and restrictions of this disclaimer; and (ii) you will conduct your own analysis or other verification of the data and information setout in this Presentation and will bear the responsibility for all or any costs incurred in doing so.

2

JKX Oil & Gas (JKX LN)E&P growth portfolio across Central/Eastern Europe and Russia

• Ukraine: large-scale field development opportunity

• Russia: Stable cash-generating operations

• Hungary/Slovakia: Significant exploration potential

• Team: New board and executive management focused on modern development approach

Country Licenses Prod Expl Infrastructure

2016 Production Reservesmmboe

Contingent Resources

mmboeGas mmcf/d

Oil mbbl/d

Total mboe/d 1P 2P 3C

Ukraine IgnativskeElyzavetivskeRudenkivskeNovomykolaivskeMovchanivskeZaplavska

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

2 Processing Facilities1 LPG Plant

18.6 0.9 4.0 15 29 457

Russia Koshekhablskoye ✓ 1 Gas Processing 36.1 0.1 6.1 43 80 108

Hungary 6 Licenses ✓ 1 Gas Processing - - - - - 1

Slovakia 3 Licenses (25% WI) ✓ - - - - - -

Total 54.7 1.0 10.1 58 109 565

*Source: Company data, Reserves and Contingent Resources are DeGolyer and MacNaughton estimates as of 31 December 20163

Progress & PrioritiesProgress provides launch pad for growth

2016 Progress

• Completed detailed field development plans (FDPs) for all core assets, identified growth opportunities,and started their implementation

• Increased production with minimum capital expenditure

• Reduced operating costs and overheads, resulting in an increase in cash flow and profitability

• Eliminated short-term financial liabilities (bond repurchase and restructuring)

• Completed international arbitration procedure, while actively engaging in dialogue with the Government of Ukraine.

• Built a technical team

2017 Priorities

Ukraine: Execute development plan

Hungary/Slovakia: Appraisal and

Exploration

Resolve legal issues with Ukraine

Russia: Maintain base and consider strategic

monetization

1

2

3

4

5

6

4

Key Financials

($m) 2015 2016Change

%

Production, boepd 8,996 10,083 12.1

Natural gas price ($ per Mcf)

4.20 2.95 (29.8)

Oil price($ per bbl)

49.75 45.94 (7.7)

Group revenue 88.5 73.8 (16.6)

EBITDA* 16.9 15.8 (6.5)

Cash from operations 12.8 17.0 32.8

Adjusted cash from operations**

18.0 30.0 66.7

Capital expenditure 6.2 7.5 19.4

Total debt 34.4 16.8 (51.5)

Total cash 26.3 14.3 (45.6)

5* before exceptional items**before legal/professional/restructuring costs

• Operating cash flow Efficiency: Despite 30% decline in natural gas prices, operating cash flow (ex legal, professional, and restructuring fees) increased 67% to $30 million in 2016 vs $18 million in 2015.

• Compelling CAPEX efficiency: About 20 enhancement projects completed from beginning of 2016 to date added ~1,200 boepd to our production as of April 2017. $2.8 million spent on completed enhancements has not only paid back already, but also generated estimated pre-tax cumulative free cash flow of $7.3 million by April 2017 and expected to generate a total of $15 million – more than five times the initial investment.

• Successful Debt restructuring: Besides achieving a successful bond restructuring, bond repurchases in 2016 generated additional cost savings of $2.6 million and return of 83% for the Company assuming the bonds were put in February 2017 ($5.7 million and 29%, respectively, if bonds were held until maturity in February 2020)

Achievements to dateOur strategy works – next step is to scale it

Why Ukraine?Integrated developed European gas market with premium pricing

• 4th largest European producer after Norway, Netherlands and the UK

• Premium pricing to Europe & US

• Developed pipeline and natural gas infrastructure

• Import dependent EU and Ukraine supports pricing and fiscal policies

• Ukraine imports 35% of its demand

• Ukraine Government strategic target for energy independence by 2021

Source: IHS, BP, Naftogaz of Ukraine, Bloomberg

Import dependent Europe’s 4th largest gas producer Europe’s premium pricing underpins supply & imports

Developed infrastructure supports market access Ukraine’s Attractive Natural Gas Market

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Price,$/M

cf

HenryHub NBP Ukraine

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

BCF/D

Other UnitedKingdom Netherlands Norway Ukraine TotalConsumptionEurope

DEMAND

IMPORTS

EUROPRODUCTION

6

Ukraine’s Natural Gas Resources Support Growth4Th Largest European supplier with significant scope for growth

Ukraine production stable but down 70% since Soviet peak Reserves could support return to previous maximum production

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Bc

f

700

2,450

34,000

150,000+

350,000+

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

Production 2016 Production basedon EU R/P ratio

Official Reserves Conventionalresources

Unconventionalresources

Bcf

7

• With official reserves of 1 tcm and gas production of 20 bcma, Ukraine has a reserves life of up to 50 years, compared to 11 years in the US and 15 years in the EU

• Ukraine’s reservoir quality is 10-100 times better than US shale plays, but its productivity is much lower

• However, due to poor execution performance in Ukraine is up to 90 times worse vs. the United States

• Productivity of gas extraction technology in the US increased by up to 33 times in the past decade – so dramatic improvement is possible within a relatively short time frame

• Investment in new production combined with technology transfer can help significantly increase gas production in Ukraine

Opportunity to Grow Gas Production in UkraineBy bridging the performance gap vs. the United States

New-well production per rig*, boepd and performance vs. Ukraine

Increase in new-well production per rig since 2007

* As measured by average first-month production of a well in a particular play multiplied by number of wells one rig drills per month. Data for US as provided in the EIA Drilling Productivity Report. Data for Ukraine (UGV) is based on estimated average IP rate of 40 mcmpd, drilling speed of 300 meters per month and average well depth of 3,000 meters per well

Source: EIA, Company estimates

2,268

2,216

2,037

1,466

1,314

1,243

847

25

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500

Marcellus

Eagle Ford

Niobrara

Utica

Bakken

Haynesville

Permian

Ukraine (UGV)

5.2x

7.6x

8.7x

8.8x

10.5x

28.0x

33.6x

0.0x 10.0x 20.0x 30.0x 40.0x

Permian

Haynesville

Niobrara

Eagle Ford

Bakken

Marcellus

Utica

34x

51x

53x

60x

83x

90x

92x

8

Field Development Well Construction Production Operations

geological & petro-physical properties inherent in the rock –permeability, oil viscosity, thickness of the oil bearing zone

𝑘ℎ

𝐺𝜇𝐵∆𝑝𝐽𝐷

Completion – mathematically the radius of the well bore in relation to the oil bearing formation

the pressure differential between the reservoir & the well bore at the perforations

Science Driven Organizational StructureDarcy’s Law incorporated into the E&P philosophy

𝑞 =𝑘ℎ

𝐺𝜇𝐵𝐽𝐷 ∆𝑝

Name Position Background

Andrew Spencer

Head of Field Development Planning

Ritchie Wayland

Exploration Manager

Robert Glaser

Geologist

Amar Dosanjh

Geologist

NickDe’Ath

Geologist

Name Position Background

Roman Galchenko

Completions Engineer

CalvinYao

Reservoir Engineer

Iskander Diyashev

Reservoir Engineer

Name Position Background

MikeStolte

Operations Director

ThomasRut

Operations Director

PaulWood

Group OperationsManager

9

JKX Ukraine Assets and Development StrategyProtect base through enhancements, focus on Rudenkivske growth

Source: Company data, DeGolyer & MacNaughton

1. Production Base:

• Workovers at ‘Novo-Nik’

• Waterflood at Ignativske

• Development of Elyzavetivske

2. Growth:

• Focus on Rudenkivske license

2016 Production Reserves and resources, mmboe

boepd 1P 2P 3C

Rudenkivske 120 9.5 22.2 381.8

Ignativske 1,364 2.8 3.9 50.1

Elyzavetivske 1,448 1.3 1.7 20.8

Movchanivske 651 0.5 0.6 2.8

Novomykolaivske 396 0.6 0.7 0.1

Zaplavska 0 0 0 1.4

Total 3,979 14.6 29.1 457.0

Elyzavetivske and West Mashivske Licenses‘Novo-Nik’ Complex of Licenses

10

Schematic drilling locations at Rudenkivske field• Concept: Modern drilling and completions using North American-style manufacturing approach to production

• Resources: 2.8 Tcf in place, ~600 Bcf recoverable volumes

• 1-2% recovery (Ukraine est.)

• 25-50% recovery (US est.)

• Production of ~18,000 boe/d (1 bcma) in 2020-2021

• Field Development Plan includes 135 wells with anticipated capex of ~$660mn

Rudenkivske Full Field Development (FFD)Focus of our growth going forward

11

Rudenkivske Development PlanDe-risking by proving the concept using existing wells

• Preparation (2016-2017)

• New technical team and philosophy

• Field Development Plan (focus on Visean)

• Analysis of 32 mostly Soviet-era wells for re-entry / workover

• 2 successful well workovers (NN16, NN47)

• Proof of concept (2017)

• Re-enter and ‘Clean up’ up to 11 pre-selected old wells

• Fracture stimulation of selected wells with Schlumberger (Starting in May 2017)

• Use results to fine tune FFD

• Full Field Development

• Pad-based drilling of up to 135 wells to decrease costs and minimize impact on environment

• Manufacture-style drilling, completion and stimulation of vertical / deviated wells

Rudenkivske

Novo Nik

Ignatovskoye

12

Rudenkivske AnaloguesTransferring success to Ukraine

• Williams Fork formation in Piceance Basin in Colorado close analog for the Rudenkivske field

• The field was discovered in the 1970s but abandoned due to economics until 1990s as application of multi-stage fracturing reduced costs

• Learning curve and advances in technology allowed for 2x increases in recovery

• Cost reduction through adoption of manufacturing-style approach to drilling and completion essential for economic development of the field

Parameter Rudenkivske, Dnieper Donets basin

Williams-Fork, Piceance basin

Utica, Appalachian basin Deep Bossier, East Texas Basin

Lance Pool,Pinedale/Jonah Field, Green River Basin

Gas saturation 55-80% 35-55% 40-65% 50-95% 65-75%

Clay Content 10-20% 5-21% 20-40% 10-22% 10-15%

Total Porosity 6-17% 6-8.5% 3-10% 5-14% 6-12%

Permeability >0.1mD <0.1mD 0.0001mD <0.5mD <0.1mD

Pressure (psi) 5600-8900 3000-7000 3100-8600 >10,000 3000-7800

Gross Thickness (metres)

300-800m 600-1000m 50-300m 300-760m 700-1000m+

Depth (metres) 3000-4500m 2000-3500m 600-4000m >5000m 2600-4400m

Average IP rates 10 – 12MMscf/d 1 – 2MMscf/d 5 – 47MMscf/d 2 – 15MMscf/d 6 – 7.5MMscf/d

Average EUR (per well) 4 – 5Bcf 1 – 2Bcf 2.5 – 5Bcf 5 – 7Bcf 4 – 9Bcf

Sources: Companies’ public data

13

• Full field development will start around well R104 (Mid-term) and later graduate towards other areas (Full-field). R104 mid-case and type well mid-case production profiles and associated well economics are provided below

• Mid-term development wells are assumed to have higher CAPEX ($5.7mn) which will be reduced to $4.5mn for full-field development wells with efficiency improvements

• Gas price of $5.7 / mmcf ($200 / mcm), 29% gas royalty rate, and $2.5 / boe OPEX cost were used for economic evaluation

Rudenkivske EconomicsCompelling returns with investment scale

Indicative monthly R 104 area well (Mid-term) and type well production profiles (log scale),

boepd and cumulative, mboe

Indicative pre-tax economics for mid-term and type well profiles

Mid-term Full-field

Production unlocked, EUR15, mboe 687 716

30-day IP, boepd 2,496 551

1-year decline, % -85% -49%

Well cost, $mn 5.7 4.5

NPV10, $mn 6.1 5.2

IRR 234% 51%

P/I 2.0 2.1

Simple payback, months 6 23

Discounted payback, months 7 26

Unit development cost, $ / boe of EUR 8.3 6.3

CAPEX per flowing barrel, $k / boepd 29.0 26.1

14

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Base Case Rud Base Net taxliability

G&A Net debt Rud Upside Russia Upside Unrisked NAV Current mktcap

$M

ln

Hungary

EV Production $/Flowing Barrel EV/2P+2C($m) (kboe/d) (k$/kboe/d) ($/boe)

Eland Oil and Gas Nigeria 96.3 2.5 22.0 2.1

Exillon Energy Russia 198.8 13.7 16.8 0.4

Gulf Keystone Kurdistan 317.5 33.0 9.1 0.6

Petroneft Russia 27.5 1.4 16.2 0.5

Roxi Petroleum Kazakhstan 120.9 1.0 67.2 2.8

Urals Energy Russia 28.1 2.1 12.1 0.6

JKX Oil & Gas Ukraine/Russia 45.8 10.0 4.1 0.1

Average Average 23.9 1.2

Comparing JKX to its Peers:

Comparing JKX Potential to Current Valuation:

JKX ValuationOne external view of absolute and relative potential

Source: Stockdale; Company research

Ukraine

Russia

15

Appendix

Russia: Koshekhablskoye FieldStable production provides cash flow with appraisal upside

• Producing gas field with 2P reserves of 490 Bcf of natural gas and 0.8 mn boe of oil and condensate in Southern Russia.

• Current production of 37 mmcf/d (6,114 boepd) at ~60% of capacity utilization provides for lower incremental capital costs per well

• Callovian reservoirs in deeper horizons provide significant long-term growth opportunities with gas recovery of 34-43 bcf from a single well

Top Oxfordian B Depth Structure Map

Callovian well location

17

Hajdúnánás IV MP0.5-1.5 Bcf gas1-2 MMboe oil

Hajdúnánás V MP5-7 Bcf prospect

Tiszavasvári IV MP20 Bcf appraisal100-200 Bcf upside

Emőd V MP (Mezo)1-1.5 MMboe appraisal5-10 MMboe expl upside

Pély I MP5-10 Bcf prospect

Jászkisér II MP4-7 Bcf prospect

• Six mining licenses (100% net) and processing facilities with 18 mmcf/d of capacity

• Production from Hn-2 well restarted after successful sidetrack at an initial rate of 1.8 MMcf/d after a production and sales break of more than three years

• Development planning is underway and future work may include a workover of the existing Hn-1 well to add production from the Lower Pannonian reservoir interval

Hungary: Sidetrack Result Highlights Opportunity Recent Hn-2 well returns Hajdunanas field to production

18

• JKX owns 25% non operating working interest

• DiscoveryGeo (Operator) using Magneto Telluric survey data to calibrate expensive but low resolution 2D seismic data

• The prospective resource sizes (up to 20 MMboe OOIP and 30 Bcf IGIP) are material

• Smilno -1 well

– Site under construction, Conductor driven, well spud expected in 2017

– 12 bcfe recoverable resource (mid case)

• Other wells Poruba -1 and Kriva Ol’ka -1 have estimated EUR of 1.5 MMboe net to JKX

• Delays in permitting and activist environmental protestors are delaying site construction

Slovakian OperationsProspective resource enhancement through technology

19

New Board and Executive ManagementEnhancing governance and driving an operational re-set

Name Position Experience

PaulOstling

Non-executive ChairmanIndependent

Tom Reed

CEO, Executive Director

Russell Hoare

CFO, Executive Director

Alan Bigman

Non-executive DirectorIndependent

Bernie Sucher

Non-executive DirectorIndependent

Vladimir Tatarchuk

Non-executive Director

Vladimir Rusinov

Non-executive Director

RAVEN RUSSIA

20

Eclairs Group

Ltd27.5% Proxima

Capital Group19.9%

Neptune Invest & Finance

Corp13.0%Keyhall

Holding11.4%

Others28.2%

Shareholder Structure

Shareholder Share, % Brief information Shareholding since

Eclairs Group Ltd

27.5% The beneficial owners of Eclairs areUkrainian businessmen Igor Kolomoiskiy and Gennady Bogolyubovwhich have a wide range of business interests including, until recently, the Privatbank Group (one of Ukraine’s largest banking groups), ferrous and non-ferrous metals, media, aviation, petrochemicals etc.

2007

Proxima Capital Group

19.9% Proxima Capital Group is an independent investment firm focusing on investments in Russia, Ukraine and the CIS. Proxima Capital Group offers M&A advice, fund raising and debt restructuring and also invests in assets and asset portfolios with a focus on Russia, Ukraine and CIS countries that are at an early stage of development and which will benefit from effective management and proven sector experience

2015

Neptune Invest & Finance Corp

13.0% Neptune, a Moscow-based investment fund, is beneficially-owned by Turkish

businessman Burak Özdoğan

2015

Keyhall Holding 11.4% The sole beneficial owner of Keyhall is Mr Oleksandr Ratskevych who is a partner of Alexander Zhukov (who owned 11.4% of shares through Glengary Overseas ltd since 2004)

2016

21