JKX Oil & GasInvestor presentation

London

March 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 of

securities 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 in

connection with, or act as any inducement to enter into, any contract or commitment whatsoever or otherwise engage in any investment

activity (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 this information

has been prepared in good faith, no representation or warranty, express or implied, is or will be made and no responsibility or liability 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 or completeness

of this Presentation, and any such liability is expressly disclaimed. In particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, no

representation or warranty is given as to the achievement or reasonableness of any management estimates or prospects contained in this

Presentation.

Such statements, estimates and forecasts reflect various assumptions made by the management of the Company and their current beliefs,

which may or may not prove to be correct. A number of factors could cause actual results to differ materially from the potential results

discussed in such forward-looking statements, estimates and forecasts including: changes in general economic and market conditions,

changes in the regulatory environment, business and operational risks and other risk factors. Past performance is not a guide to future

performance. Statements contained in this document regarding past trends or activities should not be taken as a representation or warranty,

express or implied, that such trends or activities will continue in the future. No statement in this document is intended to be a profit 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 a

competent authority for the purposes of the Prospectus Directive (Directive 2003/71/EC). This Presentation has not been approved by an

authorised 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 to verification.

Recipients of this Presentation in jurisdictions outside the UK should inform themselves about and observe any applicable legal

requirements. 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 the

contents and restrictions of this disclaimer; and (ii) you will conduct your own analysis or other verification of the data and information set

out 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

*Source: Company data, Reserves and Contingent Resources are DeGolyer and MacNaughton estimates as of 31 December 2016

Country Licenses Prod Expl Infrastructure

2016 Production Reserves

mmboe

Contingent

Resources

mmboeGas

mmcf/d

Oil

mbbl/d

Total

mboe/d 1P 2P 3C

Ukraine Ignativske

Elyzavetivske

Rudenkivske

Novomykolaivske

Movchanivske

Zaplavska

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

2 Processing Facilities

1 LPG Plant18.6 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

3

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

Strategic Growth PrioritiesLeading Central/Eastern European focused E&P

• Increase production

• Explore and appraise Hungary & Slovakia

upside potential

• Improve market profile for retail and

institutional investors

Production growth underpinned by transparency and western technology

• Leverage existing resource base and local

expertise

• Introduce modern technology and practices

targeting world-class performance

• Strengthen corporate culture with focus on

transparency, inclusivity and individual

responsibility

Production, boepd Capital Expenditures, $ million

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

2014 2015 2016

k b

oepd

5

0

10

20

30

40

50

2014 2015 2016

$ m

illio

n

Capital Investment ProjectsUkraine re-investment drives future growth

* Indicative full-cycle project capital expenditures (CAPEX) subject to Final Investment Decision (FID) and/or Board authorization.

Project Country Scope

Indicative

CAPEX*

$mn

Year 1

Production

mboepdEUR

mmboe

Well enhancements Ukraine

Enhancement projects on existing wells and

rig-less interventions (ESPs, velocity strings &

perforations)

2.4 1.7 1.4

Fracking of existing wells

Rudenkivske fieldUkraine Fracking of up to 11 existing wells 17.7 4.4 4.1

Ignativske waterflood Ukraine Oil-focused enhanced recovery project 7.5 1.5 0.6

Well 5 workover Russia Workover of existing non-producing wells 3.0 6.4 1.8

Sidetrack Hungary Sidetrack of existing wells 1.8 0.1 0.3

Rudenkivske full field

development (Phase 1)Ukraine 2 pads with 12 wells each 153.7 16.4 9.2

Callovian well RussiaNew well to de-risk predicted porous Callovian

reservoirs15.0 7.2 4.0

Other VariousOther projects and base / maintenance CAPEX

for 2017-201813.1

TOTAL 214.1 37.7 21.5

Pro

ject

pri

ori

ty /

ph

asin

g

6

24.3

32.5

39.0

7.7

14.9

9.9

22.514.0

0.9

4.9

34.2

55.053.0

8.6

19.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Gas Condensate Oil Gas Condensate

$/b

oe

Capital Allocation Prioritized for ReturnsAcross the project portfolio of the Group and potential targets

Indicative product sales prices, $/boe Prioritizing capital projects – scale vs. returns

Ukraine Russia

Gas $4.6/mcf

($27.5/boe)

Oil $50/boe

European oil and gas benchmark prices

Ukraine -enhancements

Ukraine - Rud fracs

Ukraine - Rud drilling (24

wells)

Ukraine -Ignativske

Russia well 5

Russia -Callovian well

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0 5 10 15 20 25

EU

R,

mm

boe

Project net revenue/CAPEX, $/$

Initial stages of

Rudenkivske

development in Ukraine

have the highest impact

for JKX

• JKX has a variety of projects in Ukraine and Russia

• Rudenkivske project provides good balance of scale and returns with additional upside with

decreased royalty rates

7

Ticker JKX LN

Share price (01/25/2017), GBp 25.5

Shares outstanding 171,723,145

Market cap, GBPmn 43.8

GBPUSD (03/17/2017) 1.24

Market cap, USDmn 54.3

Net debt, USDmn 2.5

EV, USDmn 56.8

Financial results: Reversing the Trend

JKX Oil & Gas plc share information

JKX Oil & Gas plc trades with a premium Listing on London Stock Exchange

8

5.74

4.20

2.95

30%

$2.95

2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016

8.707.45

5.38

$5.38

28%

(22.4)%

(23,0)

(35,8)

(22,4)

2014 2015 2016

Key Financials

($m) 2015 2016Change

%

Group revenue 88.5 73.8 (16.6)

Loss from operations

before exceptional

items

(10.7) (3.9) 63.6

Exceptional items (64.9) (30.8) 52.5

Loss from operations

after exceptional items(75.6) (34.8) 54.0

Cash from operations 12.8 17.0 32.8

Capital expenditure 8.7 5.6 (35.6)

Realised gas price

($ per Mcf)4.20 2.95 (29.8)

Realised oil price

($ per bbl)49.75 45.94 (7.7)

0

5

10

15

20

25

0

20

40

60

80

100

Vo

lum

e

Pri

ce, G

Bp

Volume Price

2016: Building a Sound Platform for GrowthPositive operating cash flow despite environment

• Operating cash flow in 2016 was $30.0mn vs. $18.0mn in 2015 due to lower costs

• Legal, professional, and restructuring costs increased from $5.2mn in 2015 to $13.0mn in 2016 due to international

arbitration costs ($3.9mn), settling of previously incurred claims against major shareholders ($3.2mn), severance and

redundancy costs ($3.2mn), professional advisory fees related to Board replacement ($0.5mn), and other legal fees

• Other costs include convertible bond repayments and repurchases which increased significantly in 2016

• Upon successful completion of the bond restructuring $16.0 million of bonds are outstanding which will be repaid in

roughly equal installments in 2018-2020

YE 2014 – YE 2016 cash position, $ million

9

25.4 25.9

14.1

18.0

6.2

5.2

6.0

30.0

7.5

13.0

21.5

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

31 December2014

Cash fromoperations

CAPEX Legal,professional,restructuring

Financing /other

31 December2015

Cash fromoperations

CAPEX Legal,professional,restructuring

Financing /other

31 December2016

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

Name Position Experience

Paul

Ostling

Non-executive Chairman

Independent

Tom

ReedCEO, Executive Director

Russell

HoareCFO, Executive Director

Alan

Bigman

Non-executive Director

Independent

Bernie

Sucher

Non-executive Director

Independent

Vladimir

Tatarchuk

Non-executive Director

Vladimir

RusinovNon-executive Director

RAVEN RUSSIA

10

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

𝑞 =𝑘ℎ

𝐺𝜇𝐵𝐽𝐷 ∆𝑝

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

Name Position Background

Andrew

Spencer

Head of Field

Development

Planning

Ritchie

Wayland

Exploration

Manager

Robert

GlaserGeologist

Amar

DosanjhGeologist

Nick

De’AthGeologist

Name Position Background

Roman

Galchenko

Completions

Engineer

Micah

Spencer

Petroleum

Engineer

Calvin

Yao

Reservoir

Engineer

Iskander

Diyashev

Reservoir

Engineer

Name Position Background

Mike

Stolte

Operations

Director

Thomas

Rut

Operations

Director

Paul

Wood

Group

Operations

Manager

11

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

12

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

13

Ukraine targets energy independence with 27bcm by 2020...Ukraine production stable but down 70% since Soviet peak

Long reserve life of ~3x EU highlights resources… Development scope supports doubling of production

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

R/PRatio,years

Ukraine Norway EU(WgtAvg)

R/Pratios

Ukraine35yrsNorway16yrs

EU10yrs

Source:BPStatisticalReviewofWorldEnergy 2016.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

194

0

195

0

196

0

197

0

197

6

198

0

198

5

199

1

199

3

199

5

199

7

199

9

200

1

200

3

200

5

200

7

200

9

201

1

201

3

201

5

Bcf

7061,348

33,697

150,000+

350,000+

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

Production 2016 Production R/P25 years

Reserves Conventionalresources

Unconventionalresources

Bcf

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Production,Bcm

Base Brownfields Greenfields

• Dramatic gas sector reforms in 2015-2016

– Gas price unified for all consumers

(residential prices increased 5-6 times to

market rates)

– Legislation passed mandating

implementation of sector unbundling and

restructuring based on EU’s Third Energy

Package which separates generation and

transmission assets

• Energy independence by 2020

– Ukraine still imports 35% of gas consumed

– New gas production plan calls for 40%

increase in production from current levels to

meet expected demand

• Lower royalties critical to achieving this goal

– Initiative to introduce 12% production tax for

new wells widely supported, but failed to

pass in 2016

Ukraine’s Gas Sector ReformsGovernment objective for energy independence by 2020

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Base Brownfields Greenfields

Ukraine’s Official Gas Production Target (Bcf/d)

14

45%29%

18%16%

15%13%12%

10%10%

8%5%4%4%

1%0%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

UkraineCondensateUkraineGas

USRomaniaAlbaniaTurkey

HungaryCroatia

LithuaniaBulgariaSlovakiaIreland

NetherlandsPolandGreece

• Ukraine needs an attractive, simple and

stable tax regime to make outside investors

take serious notice

• Ukraine’s current tax rates are not

competitive internationally

• Greenfield projects are currently not

feasible b/c full-cycle costs exceed

netbacks to producers

• A single 12% royalty rate calculated on the

basis of a transparent European hub price

will make Ukraine an immediate destination

for external investment

Pace of Growth Driven by Gas TaxationKey piece of the puzzle for energy independence by 2020

Royalty rates in Ukraine are significantly higher than peers

Proposal: 12%

Sources: Deloitte, Ministry of Finance of Ukraine, Company analysis

Reducing royalty rates will allow for faster development

15

• JKX’s Ukraine licenses located on the southern edge of the

prolific Dnieper-Donetsk Basin (DDB)

• DDB has already produced over 70 Tcf of gas and retains

significant potential across Carboniferous and Devonian

reservoirs (3000-5000 m depth)

− 35 Tcf recoverable conventional reserves

− 120 Tcf recoverable conventional resources

− 100-400 Tcf unconventional potential

• Production of 7 bcf/d in 1960s before Soviet focus shifted to

West Siberia more than double current production

• Largest fields (e.g. Shebelinka) in terminal decline, but hundreds

of smaller fields and geological prospects remain

− 90% of Ukraine’s current gas production comes from DDB

− Gas 85% of total resources; oil (10%) concentrated in the

north west part of the basin

− Hydrocarbons tend to be high quality (low percentage of

inert gases, no H2S)

Ukraine’s Dnieper-Donets BasinA world class petroleum province

16

JKX Ukraine Reserves & Resources

Source: Company data, DeGolyer & MacNaughton

Elyzavetivske and West Mashivske Licenses‘NovoNik’ Complex of Licenses

Production and Reserves in Ukraine

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

• Growth focused on

Rudenkivske license

• Protect the base

production with

EGR, EOR,

workovers and

enhancements

• Monitor the market

and seek

opportunities for

further growth

17UKRAINE

Rudenkivske Field PotentialLarge in place gas volumes in thick clastic reservoirs

18

Rudenkivske target horizons

Rudenkivske project summary

UKRAINE

Mid-termFull

Field

Activity

Wells # 24 110

Workovers # 9 -

CAPEX $mn 154 500

EUR mmboe 20.9 60

Year 1 production mboepd 13.4 nm

• Largest hydrocarbon potential with 2.8 tcf in place, up to 600 bcf recoverable volumes and incremental production of up to 24k boepd

• Development began in Soviet period (1970)

with 32 wells drilled with up to 70mmscf/d IP

rates, albeit with very low recovery rates due

to limits of technology

• Full Field Development includes manufacture-

style drilling and multistage fracture of vertical /

deviated wells with scope for 25-50% recovery

rates

• Isolated sand ‘lenses’ to be connected

horizontally and vertically by large fracks

• Activity plan includes 135 wells with

anticipated capex of ~$660mn

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

19

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

UKRAINE

Sources: Companies’ public data

• 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

20

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

UKRAINE

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

Rudenkivske Lessons LearnedComparison between R103 and Future Development

21

• Guar cross-linked will be replaced by HCFR as it is a cleaner fluid and leaves less damaging residue in

the reservoir.

• Large variation in frac parameters witnessed in R103 which can in part be attributed to lack of Dipole

Sonic data which will be recorded in all new wells.

• R103 only targeted the Devonian so could be horizontal. 19R twin will be vertical to enable the

simultaneous fracturing of 3 intervals – Devonian, Tournaisian and V26.

• Vertical wells are likely to be replaced by horizontal wells once the recovery by zone is better understood.

• Fracturing costs significantly less now than when R103 was fractured which dramatically improves the

economics and allows for time to progress along the learning curve prior to the increase in costs.

• New wells to be drilled with Top Drive as opposed to rotary drilling which historically was used. Potential

to dramatically reduce drilling time.

UKRAINE

R103 R19 TwinWell type Horizontal Vertical# of reservoirs 1 3# of fracs 10 8

Fluid type Guar cross-linked Polyacrylamide HCFR

Proppant type 20/40 High Strength 30/50 Lightweightfrac length, m 100-300 100

frac width, mm 10 20Initial production, MMscf/d 2.9 11.1

Total recovery, Bcf 1.1 5.4

22

Rudenkivske FDPField Development Plan Summary

Preparation (2016-2017

Initial development (2017-2018)

Full-field development

(2018+)

• Select wells from existing

well stock for interventions

and fracturing

• Execute well

enhancements

(perforations) to gain

experience working over

old wells, test hypotheses

and gather data

• Approvals, commercial

agreements and of the

preparations for fracturing

legacy wells

• Secure rig and frack fleet

• Continue well workovers and

enhancements

• Design & Test fracture and

completions technology

• Fracture preselected legacy

wells

• Execute contracts for

manufacturing-style, pad-

based development

• Drill initial wells and

implement data acquisition

program

• Delineation and development

drilling (135 wells w. multiple

fracks) using manufacturing-

style approach

• Reservoir management

• G&G studies

UKRAINE

Rudenkivske FDP – Mid-termExisting well stimulation and pad drilling

23

Appraisal well selectionExisting well review, workover and

stimulation

• 30 shut-in and abandoned wells have been reviewed to identify candidates for workover and stimulation

− Up to 9 wells to be worked over and/or fractured (50+ stages total) were identified

− Total mid-term production potential: 10-15 bcf

− ~700 mm well perforations of existing wells provide insight into what may be achieved with up to

100m frac - well NN16 tested at 14 MMcf/d rate (watered out in December) and NN47 tested at

16.9 MMcf/d rate (declined to 11.5 MMcf/d in January 2017).

• This will allow to improve understanding of the field and generate cash flow to support full field

development

• Building on data generated from workovers and stimulation, pad-based development to be launched

with two 12-well pads around wells R104 and R19 (locations are being confirmed)

UKRAINE

• FFD focuses on drilling and multistage fracture of

vertical / deviated wells

• Economies of scale to be achieved via

manufacturing-style drilling and fracking process

• Isolated sand ‘lenses’ to be connected horizontally

and vertically by large fracks

• FFD (including mid-term development):

− Recoverable reserves: up to 500-600 bcf

− Total number of wells: 135

− Total CAPEX ~$650 million

Schematic drilling locations at Rudenkivske field

Rudenkivske FDP – Full Field“North-American style” manufacturing approach

24UKRAINE

Rudenkivske SensitivitiesType well indicative economics sensitivities

25

Effect of 30% change in key value drivers on 5-year single well NPV10, $mn

• Chart below shows effect of 30% change of key value drivers on total single-well NPV10 ($5.2 million in the base case based on

full-field type curve)

• Change in gas price, IP rate, royalty rate, and well cost have the greatest impact

5.2

UKRAINE

-3.2

-2.9

+2.6

+1.3

+.3

+3.2

+2.9

-1.3

-.3

-4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 +1.0 +2.0 +3.0 +4.0

Gas price - $4.0/$7.4 / mmcf

Rud IP rate - 3.0/5.5 mmcf/d

12% royalty

Rud well cost - $3.2m/$5.9m

Opex - $1.8/$3.3 / boe

Decrease Increase

Ignativske Waterflood EnhancementsWaterflood potential for enhanced oil recovery

26

• Isolated southern carbonate oil block identified

as a target for enhanced oil recovery via

waterflood. The pilot area has 3 wells (IG-124,

IG-126 and IG-138) drilled to date

• Target injection rate is 10,000 bbl/d using two

injection wells (~10x increase from current rate)

• An additional 0.5 – 1.8 mmboe of incremental oil

can be recovered from this isolated block as a

result of successful waterflood campaign

• Additional oil recovery could potentially be

added once analysis on Devonian clastic

reservoir’s waterflood potential is completedTop of structure map of Lower Carboniferous

carbonate reservoir in Ignativske field showing

isolated waterflood pilot area

Ignativske project summary

UKRAINE

Mid-termFull

Field

Activity

Wells # 2 EOR

CAPEX $mn 9

EUR mmboe 1.5

Year 1 production mboepd 0.6

Elyzavetivske Infill ProjectsAccelerating natural gas production from base assets

27

• Production acceleration from producing A-2

reservoir

− The A2 interval is a Lower Permian

carbonate-evaporite deposit. This interval

has both high porosity and high

permeability, and is the primary productive

facies of the A2 reservoir

− The FDP’s objective is to drill and

complete two infill wells (E-308 then E-

305) to accelerate gas production and

increase ultimate gas recovery within

Elyzavetivske

• Appraisal of West Mashivske area of the

license

− West Mashivske area to the West of main

producing area has production potential in

the A carbonates and lower G sands

totaling up to 50 bcf

− A redevelopment of a previously drilled

and producing well to begin appraisal

phase

− Up to 5 wells for FFD

Elyzavetivske project summary

UKRAINE

Mid-termFull

Field

Activity

Wells # up to 5

CAPEX $mn 20.0

EUR mmboe 2.5

Year 1 production mboepd nm

Koshekhablskoye Workovers Support Cash FlowExisting production and well workover potential

• A producing gas field with significant proved reserves

located in Southern Russia (Republic of Adygeya -- East

Kuban Depression)

• Production from Upper Jurassic (Oxfordian) biohermal

carbonates (4,800-5,000 m). Approximately 130 bcf of gas

has been produced from the Oxfordian reservoirs since

onset in 1982 (including about 88 bcf produced before JKX

acquired the field)

• Since JKX acquired the field in 2007, a brand new

production facility with capacity of up to 60 mmscf/d was

installed

• Historically JKX developed Oxfordian gas reserves.

Several well workovers are planned to increase production

from this reservoir in 2017-2018, including workover of

currently non-producing well-5

28

Well-5 workover project summary

RUSSIA

Mid-termFull

Field

Activity

Wells #

Workovers # 1

CAPEX $mn 3.0

EUR mmboe 6.4

Year 1 production mboepd 1.8

Top Oxfordian B Depth Structure Map

Oxfordian Gas Producers

Proposed Callovian well location

Callovian Growth OpportunityUnlocking significant natural gas resources

• Callovian reservoirs, not tapped yet by

existing wells, provide significant

growth opportunity

• Total 2C original gas in place (OGIP)

from all five Callovian reservoirs

estimated to be approximately 630 bcf.

It is estimated that a 2P gas recovery

of 34 to 43 bcf of gas can be obtained

from a single well in the Callovian

reservoirs, over 15 years

• The recommended vertical well

location intersects predicted porous

reservoir within the Lower Callovian

(V), Upper Callovian (I-IV), and

Oxfordian reservoirs. Good well control

and seismic data provided high

confidence that at least one gas target

will be productive

29

Callovian project summary

RUSSIA

Mid-termFull

Field

Activity

Wells # 1 10

Workovers # - -

CAPEX $mn 15 100-125

EUR mmboe 7.2 60

Year 1 production mboepd 4.0 nm

Hajdúnánás IV MP

0.5-1.5 Bcf gas

1-2 MMboe oil

Hajdúnánás V

MP

5-7 Bcf prospect

Tiszavasvári IV MP

20 Bcf appraisal

100-200 Bcf upside

Emőd V MP (Mezo)

1-1.5 MMboe appraisal

5-10 MMboe expl upside

Pély I MP

5-10 Bcf prospect

Jászkisér II MP

4-7 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

30

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

HUNGARY

• Tisza IV: Tight gas appraisal project with very large upside potential

− Tiv- 6 Discovery: 300 meter gas column

− 2% Royalty (unconventional terms)

• Mezo (Emőd V): Shallow (1200-1400m) oil field redevelopment with significant exploration upside

− Apply 3D seismic and EOR to old oil field (10 MMboe in place, 1 MMboe produced, 1-1.5 mmboe remaining recoverable potential)

− 5-10 MMboe of additional recoverable oil from 2 leads on the 100km^2 license

− No royalty for EOR projects

• Haj IV: Shut-in gas field redevelopment with deeper oil appraisal

− Remaining shallow (1000m) gas in the formerly producing Hajdúnánás field (0.5-1 Bcf)

− Miocene oil potential (1.5-3 MMboe) in satellite exploration projects

• Haj V: Additional gas exploration prospect near gas plant

− Will require Tisza IV production facility

31

JKX Projects in HungaryHighlights

LICENCE Phase 1 Phase 2 Full-field

Tiszavasvári IV Farm-out 1 well10-20

wells

Emőd V3D

Farm-out2 wells 5-6 wells

Hajdúnánás IV 1 well 1 well 3-4 wells

Hajdúnánás V 1-2 wells

CAPEX $mn 2.5 – 3.08.0 -

10.0

40.0 -

80.0

HUNGARY

Hungary projects summary

4th Bid Round – Concessions

• Government Bid round 4

International Activity in Hungary

• Six international and two domestic companies control >95% of exploration & production acreage.

• Full spectrum – exploration to field redevelopment (MOL)

JKX Strategy

• Near term appraisal and development

• Field redevelopment

32

Hungary Bid Round Activity Concession rounds to field redevelopment

HUNGARY

• 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 Dec 2016

– 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

33SLOVAKIA

Appendix

Reserves & Resources (PRMS Basis)DeGolyer & MacNaughton reports

35

Reserves & Resources

Range of Commerciality

Range of Uncertainty

PRMS Category Reserves (Net) Contingent Resources (Net) Prospective Resources

PRMS Classification 1P 2P 3P 1C 2C 3C Low Best High

Proved P Probable P+P Possible P+P+POil & Cond Natural Gas Total Total Oil & Cond Natural Gas Total Total Oil & Cond Natural Gas Total Total Total Total Total

1000 bbl MMcf KBoe KBoe 1000 bbl MMcf KBoe KBoe 1000 bbl MMcf KBoe KBoe KBoe KBoe KBoe

Ignativske 1 082 10 133 2 771 2 771 680 2 789 1 145 3 916 1 361 2 176 1 724 5 639 11 975 17 533 50 097

Movchanivske (Main/North/Wedge) 264 1 266 475 475 65 242 105 580 75 252 117 697 - 1 254 2 760

Novomykolaivske 242 2 176 605 605 60 422 130 735 26 291 75 810 - - 147

Rudenkivske 311 54 989 9 476 9 476 378 73 784 12 675 22 151 718 94 780 16 515 38 666 9 334 101 432 381 766

Zaplavska 0 - - - - - - - - - - - 33 376 1 406

Elyzavetivske 23 7 428 1 261 1 261 6 2 408 407 1 668 27 10 869 1 839 3 507 - 6 204 20 828

UKRAINE 1 922 75 992 14 587 14 587 1 189 79 645 14 463 29 051 2 207 108 368 20 268 49 319 21 342 126 798 457 003

- - -

Koshekhablskoye 413 255 007 42 914 42 914 354 221 941 37 344 80 258 383 236 307 39 768 120 026 24 120 74 772 107 528

- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

RUSSIA 413 255 007 42 914 42 914 354 221 941 37 344 80 258 383 236 307 39 768 120 026 24 120 74 772 107 528

- - -

Hadjunanas (100% WI) - - - - - - - - 13 867 158 158 - - -

Tiszavasvari 6 (100% WI) - - - - - - - - - - - - 235 276 677

HUNGARY - - - - - - - - 13 867 158 158 235 276 677

TOTAL 2 335 330 999 57 502 57 502 1 543 301 586 51 807 109 309 2 603 345 542 60 193 169 502 45 697 201 846 565 208

Source: as per DeGolyer & MacNaughton Report December 31, 2016

Total Petroleum Initially-In-Place (PIIP)

Discovered PIIP Undiscovered PIIP

Commercial Sub-Commercial

Technical, Engineering and Operations Team Global geo-market technical experience applied locally

Name Position Experience Background

Andrew

Spencer

Head of Field

Development

Planning

Over 12 years of experience in well test analysis, production forecasting, classical reservoir engineering and

simulation, nodal analysis, artificial lift design, stimulation, production optimization, workover/well planning, field

development planning and reserves evaluation.

Roman

Galchenko

Completions

Engineer

Completions engineer with 15 years experience in Russia and in the U.S. with Marathon and BP focused on

unconventional developments involving multi-stage fracturing with conventional, slick-water, hybrids and

utilizing sliding-sleeve and plug-and-perf systems.

Mike StolteOperations

Director

34 years management and execution experience. Diversified management knowledge in drilling, subsurface,

completions, production and reservoir engineering. Extensive on-site field supervision in completions,

workovers and operations across 1000s of wells in the U.S. and internationally. Broad unconventional

development and logistics expertise.

Thomas RutOperations

Director

Over 25 years of upstream E&P experience in the U.S. and internationally in major IOC’s and NOC’s in both

onshore and offshore environments. Technical expertise in development planning, production optimization, well

interventions and reservoir management.

Paul WoodGroup Operations

Manager

Following engineering roles with Schlumberger in Europe and Russia, joined JKX Oil & Gas in 1995 initially as

PPC Ukraine Engineering Manager and since 1997 responsible for PPC operations, process and facilities

engineering.

Ritchie

Wayland

Exploration

Manager

Over 35 years of geoscience expertise in West Africa Deepwater, onshore Nigeria, UKCS Gas Basin,

Australia and UK North Sea. Exploration and field development projects in Central and Eastern Europe and

Russia.

Micah

Spencer

Petroleum

Engineer

Petroleum engineer with 7 years experience in design, production and completions engineering experience

from unconventional and conventional reservoirs in Texas, Louisiana, North Dakota, Gulf of Mexico shelf and

internationally in China, Angola and Kazakhstan.

Calvin YaoReservoir

Engineer

Reservoir Engineer with about 25 years of experience in integrated reservoir modelling and simulation,

reservoir performance analysis and prediction, waterflooding and CO2 EOR, field development planning. Calvin

has extensive hands-on experience with conventional, unconventional, deepwater reservoirs.

Robert

GlaserGeologist

Over 10 years of experience in evaluation and drilling carbonate reservoirs in the Permian Basin and offshore

Brazil, clastic fields in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico, Midcontinent, and onshore Gulf Coast, in addition to

unconventional (shale and chert) plays in the Permian, San Joaquin, and Appalachian basins.

Amar

DosanjhGeologist

Technical geoscientist experienced in petroleum systems modeling, geological modelling, seismic and well log

interpretation and regional geological synthesis. Regional basin expertise in the British Isles and Wyoming and

unconventional project work undertaken in the Canning basin, Australia.

Nick De’Ath Geologist

Over 40 years management experience in exploration and development including at BP as Chief Geologist in

the North Sea and General Manager of Colombia. As VP at Triton Energy, developed the multi Tcf gas

reserves in the Malaysia Thailand JDA. Regional expertise as Yukos Chief Reservoir Geologist and subsurface

lead for TNK-BP in Moscow.

Iskander

Diyashev

Reservoir

Engineer

Over 25 years of reservoir engineering experience including reserves evaluation, engineering and

management, FDPs, integration of engineering and geological data and application of geostatistics,

engineering design and production forecasts of horizontal and stimulated wells.

36

Highlights:

• 1994: Poltava Petroleum Company, first oil and gas company with private ownership established in Ukraine

• 1995: successful IPO on the London Stock Exchange

• 2005: Entry into Eastern Europe

• 2007: Entry into Russia

• 2012: Production in Russia launched

• 2015: Six new production licences in Hungary

• 2016: New Board and Senior Management team with mandate to return company to growth and restore shareholder value

• 2016: restart of development with completion of the new Field Development Plan

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

199

5

199

7

199

9

200

1

200

3

200

5

200

7

200

9

201

1

201

3

201

5

JKX historyOver 20 years of independent E&P experience in Central/Eastern

Europe

JKX production history, 1995-1H2016

37

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 are

Ukrainian businessmen Igor

Kolomoiskiy and Gennady

Bogolyubov which have a wide range

of business interests including 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

38