GCA Reserve REport

Gaffney, Cline & Associates
REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF TEN

SELECTED DISCOVERIES AND PROSPECTS
IN THE PRE-SALT PLAY OF THE DEEPWATER
SANTOS BASIN, BRAZIL.
September 15th. 2010
ANP
C1820

CG/JW/RLG/C1820.00/GCABA.1914
ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
DISCUSSION
1. Geological Overview
2. Exploration History
3. GCA Methodology and Approach
4. General Development Concepts
5. Economic Evaluation
DISCOVERIES CONTINGENT RESOURCES
1. Tupi Including Extension to the South

1.1 Overview
1.2 Geological Model
1.3 Estimation of Oil-in-Place
1.4 Resource Estimate
1.5 Development Plan and Economic Analysis
2. Iara Including the Extension

2.1 Overview
3. Jupiter Including the Extension
3.1 Overview
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
4. Franco
4.1 Overview
PROSPECTS PROSPECTIVE RESOURCES
1. Libra
1.1 Overview
2. North East Tupi
2.1 Overview
3. Peroba
3.1 Overview
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
4. Pau Brasil
4.1 Overview
5. South Guara
5.1 Overview
6. Florim
6.1 Overview
CORROBORATION OF CASH FLOW ANALYSIS
1. Comparable Transactions
2. Implied Equity Valuations
3. Equity Valuation and GCA Cash Flow Analysis
QUALIFICATIONS OF GCA
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
FIGURES
Figure 1:
Pre-Salt Play Location Map, Offshore SE Brazil
Figure 2:
Santos Basin Pre-Salt Discoveries and Prospects Review
Figure 3:
Franco NPV versus Discount Rate
Figure 4:
Libra NPV versus Discount Rate
Figure 5:
Tupi Extension NPV versus Discount Rate
Figure 6:
North East Tupi NPV versus Discount Rate
Figure 7:
Peroba NPV versus Discount Rate
Figure 8:
Iara Extension NPV versus Discount Rate
Figure 9:
Florim NPV versus Discount Rate
Figure 10:
Jupiter Extension NPV versus Discount Rate
Figure 11:
Pau Brasil NPV versus Discount Rate
Figure 12:
South Guara NPV versus Discount Rate
Figure 13:
Franco Base Case with +/- 20% variation
Figure 14:
Base Case Nymex Price forecast, inflation, no gas sales
Figure 15:
Base Case Nymex Price forecast, inflation, with gas sales
Figure 16:
Oil price US$80 per barrel flat, no inflation, no gas sales, per barrel
Figure 17:
Oil price US$80 per barrel flat, no inflation, with gas sales, per barrel of oil
equivalent.
Figure 18:
Tupi Discovery Location Map
Figure 19:
Extension of Tupi Discovery to the South (Base Salt Depth)
Figure 20:
Iara Discovery Location Map
Figure 21:
Extension of Iara Discovery Map (Base Salt Depth)
Figure 22:
Jupiter Discovery Location Map
Figure 23:
Extension of Jupiter Discovery Location Map (Base Salt Depth)
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Figure 24:
Franco Discovery Location Map
Figure 25:
Franco Discovery Map (Base Salt Depth)
Figure 26:
Libra Prospect Location Map
Figure 27:
Libra Prospect Map (Base Salt Depth)
Figure 28:
North East Tupi Prospect Location Map
Figure 29:
North East Tupi Prospect Map (Base Salt Depth)
Figure 30:
Peroba Prospect Location Map
Figure 31:
Peroba Prospect Map (Base Salt Depth)
Figure 32:
Pau Brasil Prospect Location Map
Figure 33:
Pau Brasil Prospect Map (Base Salt Depth)
Figure 34:
South Guara Prospect Location Map
Figure 35:
South Guara Prospect Map (Base Salt Depth)
Figure 36:
Florim Prospect Location Map
Figure 37:
Florim Prospect Map (Base Salt Depth)
APPENDICES
I.
Production Profiles and Cash Flows
II.
Petroleum Resource Management System
III.
Summary of SEC Reserve Definitions
IV.
Database Available
V.
Formation Evaluation
VI.
Base Case Analysis (for different discount rates) with and without gas sales,
considering the payment of 0.5% research and development tax on gross production
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE
Four Oaks Place

1300 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 1000
Houston, Texas 77056
Gaffney, Cline & Associates Inc.

Technical and Management Advisers to the Petroleum Industry Internationally Since 1962
Telephone:
Facsimile:
Email:
CG/JW/RLG/C1820.00/gcaba.1914
(713) 850-9955
(713) 850-9966
gcah@gaffney-cline.com
September 15th. , 2010
Ms. Magda Chambriard

Director
Agncia Nacional do Petrleo, Gs Natural & Bicombustveis (ANP)
65 Rio Branco Ave., 21st.Floor
CEP 2009-004 Centro Rio de Janeiro RJ
BRAZIL
R EVIEW AND E VALUATION OF TEN S ELECTED DIS COVERIES

AND P ROS P ECTS IN THE P RE -S ALT P LAY OF THE
DEEP WATER S ANTOS B AS IN, B RAZIL.
INTRODUCTION
This report corresponds to the version presented to the ANP on 15th September, 2010
in which small corrections in translation were made to the original version presented on 1st
September, 2010.
World class petroleum resources discovered in deep water (generally > 2000 m)
of the Santos Basin, during the period 2006-2008, have resulted in changes in
legislation specific to the Brazilian oil sector (enactment of Law 12,276 of June 30,
2010). Among the changes proposed and recently ratified by the Brazilian Government
was the assignment of exploration and production rights to Petroleo Brasileiro SA
(Petrobras) within presently unlicensed acreage (the "Contract Area") for the recovery of
up to 5 Billion barrels (Bbl) of oil equivalent (boe). This assignment was the subject of an
audit and valuation by Gaffney, Cline and Associates (GCA) on behalf of the Agncia
Nacional do Petrleo, Gas Natural e Biocomustveis (ANP) in support of efforts by the
Brazilian Government and Petrobras to partly fund development of this significant
resource.
The pre-salt play comprises arealy extensive and thick (up to 300 meters +) limestone
reservoirs, sourced by oil-prone, underlying shales and sealed by a layer of salt up to 2.5
kilometers (km) thick. Since the discovery and reporting of the Tupi accumulation in 2006-7,
approximately 20 wells have been drilled within the pre-salt play of the Santos Basin, most of
which have proven the presence of petroleum in these same limestone reservoirs (Figure 1).
ANP
C1820

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 2
The contractual arrangement between the Brazilian Government (Ministry of Finance, Ministry
of Mines and Energy and ANP) and Petrobras is defined under the terms of the Contrato de
Cesso Onerosa. In summary, this contract is analogous to the existing Concession Contract
in that it includes a Minimum Work Programme (MWP), 10% Royalty and 34% Corporate Tax,
but it excludes a Signature Bonus, Special Participation Tax, PIS and COFINS and a
Research Contribution. Analysis of sensitivity was performed both with and without
consideration of mandatory spending in Research and Development.
The Contract Area lies between 175 km and 375 km due south of Rio de Janeiro, in
water depths of approximately 2,000 meters (m) to 2,500 m covering a gross area of
approximately 28,000 sq km (125 km x 225 km). Within this area 4 discoveries are located,
namely Tupi, Iara, Jupiter and Franco, plus 6 prospects (areas that have been mapped and
believed to contain petroleum, but where this has not yet been confirmed by drilling), Libra,
Florim, NE Tupi, Pau Brasil, Peroba and South Guara. These discoveries and prospects are
the subject of this review and audit. The recoverable volumes associated with the
development of the three discoveries located in areas already licensed under Concession
Contracts to Petrobras and its partners (Tupi, Iara and Jupiter) have been reviewed; however,
only the recoverable volumes associated with the extensions of these discoveries into the
Contract Area are reported. The discoveries of Iracema and Guara also lie within the Contract
Area, but are excluded from consideration. There are outline development plans for Tupi and
Iara. The Jupiter discovery is more uncertain and the recent discovery of Franco remains
under appraisal.
GCA has reviewed and audited the technical data, development plans, work
obligations and associated investments related to the discoveries and prospects and
independently estimated Contingent Resources and Prospective Resources, as appropriate in
each case. GCAs base evaluation contemplated only oil volumes although it is acknowledged
that development plans include gas exploitation for fuel, injection and eventual export and
sale. At the request of the Government, GCA also assessed the economic impact of
monetizing produced gas (surplus to operational requirements) for an assumed price at the
wellhead (i.e. excluding gas export and transportation infrastructure).
Although it considered and modelled a range of both in-place and recoverable

volumes, GCAs Scope of Work required it to focus and report upon the Best Case or 2C
Contingent Resource and Best Estimate Prospective Resource where appropriate, and
derive success case Net Present Values (NPVs) based upon Discounted Cash Flow
modelling of the resultant production profiles. As such, while geological risk was also
estimated by GCA for the six undrilled prospects, except as otherwise noted neither this nor
risks associated with the Contingent Resource cases were incorporated in the cash flow
results reported.
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The oil volumes under consideration include the extensions of known accumulations
beyond retained licence areas following relinquishment of 2nd Round (Tupi and Iara) and 3rd
Round (Jupiter) blocks, plus the Franco discovery and the six undrilled prospects that all lie
in unlicensed areas. The Franco discovery was made in May 2010 by the ANP well 2-ANP1-RJS operated by Petrobras on the ANPs behalf. A second ANP well is currently
underway on the Libra prospect, again operated by Petrobras, with results anticipated in
approximately 4 months, i.e. October/November, 2010. These two wells complete the ANPs
exploration plan for the Contract Area, albeit additional well commitments, 3D seismic data
acquisition and processing, plus long term tests are all included in the ANPs MWP for each
discovery and prospect under evaluation.
The ANP has stipulated that GCA should apply United States Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) guidelines for reserves definitions; however, in the case of
both Tupi and Iara, the undeveloped volumes likely to be recovered from the peripheral
extensions into unlicensed areas (Entorno de Tupi and Entorno de Iara) will be reliant
upon water and/or gas injection secondary recovery mechanisms, neither of which have
been proven in the pre-salt reservoirs. Paragraph 31(iii) of the SEC Guidelines states that:Under no circumstances shall estimates for undeveloped reserves be
attributable to any acreage for which an application of fluid injection or other
improved recovery technique is contemplated, unless such techniques have
been proved effective by actual projects in the same reservoir or an analogous
reservoir, as defined in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, or by other evidence
using reliable technology establishing reasonable certainty.
Accordingly, GCA concludes that reserves cannot be assigned to the Tupi and Iara
extensions, nor to the less certain Jupiter discovery, which includes a significant gas cap
composed of 79% CO2. Therefore, the Tupi, Iara and Jupiter extensions, plus the Franco
discovery are properly classified as Contingent Resources.
No SEC definition exists for Contingent Resources, and instead the industry-standard
definition promulgated by the Society of Petroleum Engineers, World Petroleum Council,
American Association of Petroleum Geologists and Society of Petroleum Evaluation
Engineers Petroleum Resources Management System (PRMS) was utilized, as follows:
Those quantities of petroleum estimated, as of a given date, to be potentially
recoverable from known accumulations by application of development projects, but
which are not currently considered to be commercially recoverable due to one or
more contingencies.
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 4
An example contingency is where evaluation of the accumulation is insufficiently

advanced to clearly assess commerciality, which is the case in the single well discoveries of
Iara, Jupiter and Franco or where there is the absence of an approved Development Plan,
as in Tupi, because of the early state of maturity of this project
The PRMS definition and classification for Prospective Resources was also adopted
for the six exploration prospects.
The MWP stipulated by the ANP for the Iara extension is 1 firm well plus 1 contingent
well, plus a contingent long term production test (Teste de Longo Duracao - TLD). In the
Jupiter extension the MWP is the drilling of 1 well plus the acquisition of 3D seismic,
including Post-Stack Depth Migration (PSDM) in the extreme south of the mapped
accumulation, beyond the retained area. The MWP for Franco calls for 2 firm wells, plus a
TLD, plus 3D seismic including PSDM.
The MWP stipulated by the ANP for the prospects is as follows: Libra and Peroba 2
firm wells, a contingent TLD plus 3D including PSDM; Pau Brasil 1 firm well and 1
contingent well, plus 3D seismic including PSDM; NE Tupi 1 firm well plus a contingent
TLD; Florim and Guara South 1 firm well.
The Contingent Resources at the 2C level of certainty (assessed equal probability
that the volume could be higher or lower than that reported) are estimated by GCA to
comprise:
Table 1
2C Contingent Resources
Discovery
(Billion Bbl)
Tupi Extension
0.04
Iara Extension
0.76
Jupiter Extension
0.34
Franco
5.45
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 5
The Best Estimate Prospective Resources (again, assessed equal probability that the
volume could be higher or lower than that reported) for the 6 prospects are estimated by
GCA to comprise:
Table 2
Best Estimate Prospective Resources (Billion
Bbl)
Prospect
Libra
7.88
North East Tupi
0.31
Peroba
0.36
Florim
0.07
Pau Brasil
0.24
South Guara
0.06
The geological chance of success associated with these prospects is considered to

be high at approximately 70%, with relatively minor concerns over trap and seal
effectiveness plus reservoir presence and quality. The only exception is Florim, where
because of doubts over mapping (trap integrity), the prospect is downgraded to an assessed
overall geological risk of 40%.
Due to the relatively unique nature of the pre-salt play (a near perfect seal, a
generally thick and hydraulically connected reservoir underlain by a very rich, mature source
rock) it can be more closely compared to extended resource plays such as the Canadian
Athabasca Tar Sands, Venezuelan Orinoco Heavy Oil Belt or North American gas shales,
which are all characterised by prolific, low geologic risk volumes rather than as conventional
oil accumulations.
In the context of scale, compared to a selection of very large discoveries in recent
years such Thunder Horse (~1 BBbl) in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico, Marlim (~2 BBbl) and
Roncador (~3 BBbl) in the deepwater Campos Basin, and Kashagan (~4-13 BBbl) in the
shallow water Caspian Basin, the discoveries in the pre-salt play are in the order of all these
combined at some 15-20 BBbl.
For the purpose of economic analysis, GCA was required to prepare cash flows and
NPVs assume success (that is, ignoring geologic or commercial risk) for each discovery or
prospect (2C or Best Estimate case), using oil prices based upon the current NYMEX futures
price curve for Brent crude, adjusted for expected oil quality (as supplied by the ANP).
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 6
Capital and operating costs were also supplied by the ANP and verified by GCA
against outline field development plans under a number of scenarios of initial well production
rate, Floating Production, Storage and Offloading (FPSO) capacity and configuration and
with and without gas development assumed. However, it should be noted that the ANP has
yet to approve any development plan for the pre-salt.
The full results of GCAs analysis are presented in Appendix I. However, in summary
the sum of the Success Case 2C Contingent Resource / Best Estimate Prospective
Resource cases, discounted at 10%, amounts to US$ 150 159 Billion, depending on
whether or not gas development is assumed.
Table 3: Oil Only Success Case Net Present Values Discounted at 10% (NPV 10)
Success Case NPV10
(US$Billion)
Discoveries++
Success Case Implied

US$/Bbl
Tupi Extension
0.4
10.67
Iara Extension
5.5
7.23
Jupiter Extension
1.8
5.29
56.8
10.44
75.8
9.62
North East Tupi
2.9
9.43
Peroba
2.9
7.84
Florim
0.4
6.74
Pau Brasil
1.3
5.52
South Guara
0.7
12.61
Franco
Prospects
Libra
Table 4: Oil Only and Oil plus Gas Success Case Net Present Values
at Different Discount Rates (Totals Only)
Discount Rate
Oil Only Case NPV

(US$Billion)
Oil plus Gas Case NPV

(US$Billion)
0%
743
783
5%
315
335
6.49% *
249
266
10%
150
159
15%
77
81
* Discount rate specified by ANP
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 7
Figure 1. Pre-Salt Play Location Map, Offshore SE Brazil
Figure 2. Santos Basin Pre-Salt Discoveries and Prospects Review
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 8
DISCUSSION
This section includes an overview of the regional geological setting, brief details of
the pre-salt play and general characteristics to avoid repetition when individual discoveries
and prospects are discussed. In addition, a brief exploration history is presented, GCAs
review, audit approach and methodology are described and the general development
concepts and economic evaluation premises are summarised.
1.
Geological Overview
The pre-salt play fairway extends from the Santos Basin in the south through the
Campos Basin to the north, possibly reaching the Espirito Santo Basin, an area of ca 800 km
from SW to NE, by ca 200 km from NW to SE in water depths generally exceeding 2,000 m.
The pre-salt play comprises Aptian limestone reservoirs of the Barra Velha Fm
(microbialites or stromatolites, deposited under hypersaline, transitional marine conditions
and generally referred to as the seismically distinct, sag section), sometimes underlain by
an additional limestone reservoir section, the Itapema Fm (coquinas or shell banks
deposited under lacustrine conditions at the top of the syn-rift section). In turn, this
reservoir section is underlain by the Barremian Picarras Fm source interval, comprising
organic-rich shales deposited in anoxic lakes of the middle syn-rift and equivalent to the
Lagoa Feia Fm, the source rock for all the major fields in the Campos Basin. Traps comprise
drape features over basement highs, four-way dip or dip/fault closed and sealed by a thick
section of salt, the Aptian Ariri Fm.
A major tectonic feature, the Outer High of the Santos Basin (OHSB), underpins and
explains the presence of the core area of the pre-salt play, from the Sugar Loaf Sub-High
in the SW to the Tupi Sub-High in the NE. The OHSB is a basement high, elongated NESW with an area of ca 12,000 sq km of closure at base Aptian salt level. The OHSB is the
most prominent and extensive feature in the pre-salt play fairway and was formed during the
Barremian to Aptian opening of the South Atlantic.
The OHSB allowed the extensive development of a marine carbonate platform in a
distal location starved of clastic input during the early Aptian thermal sag phase that followed
the syn-rift, lacustrine shales and coquinas and preceded the late Aptian evaporites. The
evaporate section is highly variable and includes almost pure, unstratified halite interbedded
with stratified anhydrites and magnesium-rich and potash-rich salts.
This carbonate
platform was developed in a sag basin type, characterized by the presence of microbial
limestones, which are also observed in distal wells in the Campos Basin covering the State
of Membro Coqueiros.
Two tectonic lineations are apparent within the OHSB, a NE-SW trend and an
orthogonal NW-SE trend, both of which feature in the discoveries and prospects under
review. The NE trend approximates to the crustal extension and rift shoulder development,
whereas the NW trend reflects transfer faulting including wrenching and transpression and/or
transtension. The presence of oil in deep waters and also significantly buried, where it
was expected gas, may be a consequence of generators placed beneath and near the
walls of salt. Justifying such as these evaporites have high thermal conductivity
generating an almost nule gradient, causing temperatures at the top and bottom of a
particular wall are almost the same. Thus, since the heat transfer takes place quickly
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 9
and efficiently from the bottom up, it would be as "cool" basis, i.e. put in the window by
the thermal effect of an oil zone which should belong to the window gas.
Moreover, the presence of gas in other provinces of the basin where the packaging
does not contemplate large stratigraphic thickness of salt, rubbed with a gradient above
normal and the effect is not observed, providing the normal occurrence of gas.
2.
Exploration History
The Contract Area surrounds the retained portions of 2nd and 3rd Round licences
awarded in 2001-2. At the time these undrilled licences were offered, only a regional 2D,
speculative seismic grid (8 km x 4 km spacing) was available, acquired in 2000 by Western
Geco (Schlumberger).
Block-focussed and semi-regional 3D seismic surveys (many by Petroleum GeoServices - PGS) were acquired over much of the Contract Area prior to and post the initial
pre-salt drilling in 2005-6. In mid-2010, the Tupi, Iara, Jupiter and Franco discoveries are
almost entirely covered by 3D, as are the Florim, NE Tupi and South Guara prospects.
However, most of the Libra prospect and all of the Peroba and Pau Brasil prospects are
mapped using 2D data alone. This 2D data, which comprises a 4 km by 8 km grid, was
reprocessed by Veritas in 2009 and has an almost perfect tie with the 3D data and was used
by the ANP in its mapping of prospects where 3D is unavailable. GCA understands that
CGGVeritas is currently acquiring 3D data over the remaining areas of the OHSB.
Following the discovery of Tupi announced in 2006, several more successful pre-salt
discoveries were announced such that by late 2007, during the run-up to the 9th Licence
Round, a presidential decree (resolution number 6, 8th November, 2007) led to the
withdrawal of 41 blocks to be offered within the deep water pre-salt fairway of the Santos,
Campos and Espirito Santo Basins. As of mid-2010, there have been no further Bidding
Rounds of offshore acreage since the 9th Round on 27th November, 2007.
3.
GCA Methodology and Approach
A team of experienced petroleum industry professionals comprising geologists,

geophysicists, petrophysicists, economists, reservoir and facilities engineers was assembled
in Rio de Janeiro for this project. The execution of the study was initiated with a kick off
meeting between GCA and ANP on 1st July, 2010. In this meeting, ANP presented the
purpose and objectives of the study, the Contract Area to be included and initiated the
process of data transfer to GCA. There were several meetings between these parties during
the course of the study for the purposes of technical discussion and data transfer.
GCAs approach to the study followed industry guidelines and standard practice,
specifically with respect to reserves and resources definitions set forth in the Petroleum
Resources Management System (PRMS) approved by the Society of Petroleum Engineers
(SPE), World Petroleum Council (WPC), American Association of Petroleum Geologists
(AAPG) and Society of Petroleum Evaluation Engineers (SPEE) in March 2007 (Appendix I).
GCA reviewed the merits of the ANPs technical interpretation of the Contract Areas
discoveries and prospects, including the 2D and 3D seismic data and interpretation,
structural mapping and gross rock volume estimation. Available well data, comprising well
logs and core data provided information regarding the reservoir type and properties such as
net reservoir thickness, porosity, permeability and oil saturation values. Well test and
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 10
production data provided information on reservoir fluid type, fluid contacts and PressureVolume-Temperature (PVT) properties, including pressure and flow rates. The
amalgamation of these collective data provided the basis for the probabilistic volumetric
estimate of the oil-in-place and potentially recoverable volumes.
The probabilistic estimation of the Original-Oil-In-Place (OOIP) requires the definition
of a range of input values, which include:
Gross Rock Volume (GRV) determined from the Petrel model based on seismic
(structure) and well data (fluid contact and/or structural spill) integration and
interpretation;
Reservoir Properties Net to Gross Ratio (N/G), porosity and oil saturation
properties determined primarily from well log and core data; and
Formation Volume Factor (FVF) for conversion of oil volume from reservoir
conditions to surface conditions, obtained from fluid and pressure data.
A number of key wells were used in the evaluation of petrophysical and fluid
parameters including 3 from Tupi, 2 from Guara and 1 each from Iara, Jupiter and Franco.
In the integration of well log and core data, emphasis was placed on Nuclear Magnetic
Resonance (NMR) logs, which appear to provide the most accurate estimate, in conjunction
with more conventional wireline logs, of free fluid and pore size distribution for the limestone
reservoirs of the pre-salt play. The net pay cut-offs (i.e. minimum reservoir qualities to
contain economically producible hydrocarbons) of 4% for porosity and 60% for water
saturation established by the ANP were extensively reviewed by GCA and found to be
reasonable.
The Estimated Ultimate Recovery (EUR) is the volume which may be extracted from
the reservoir during the life of the field. This volume is based on an estimated recovery
factor, i.e. the percentage of the OOIP that may be extracted from the reservoir. The
recovery factor is based on the reservoir quality and properties, fluid properties and the
development plan.
None of the discoveries or fields in the pre-salt area of Brazil has been producing for
sufficient time to allow estimation of EUR based on extrapolation of reservoir performance.
Thus far, a few well tests and two Extended Well Tests (EWTs) of about one year each in
the Tupi and Jubarte fields, are the only information available on reservoir performance.
Therefore, estimation of the expected recovery factor for each of the properties is
based on limited core measurements, PVT analysis, limited well tests and correlations of
standard use in the industry. A range of recovery factor values was then input in the same
Monte Carlo simulation model used to estimate the original fluids in place to generate a
probabilistic distribution of recoverable volumes.
For the Tupi, Franco, Iara and Jupiter discoveries, the ANP provided sector
simulation model results for a given reservoir volume with homogeneous average properties,
ten production wells, nine water injection wells and one gas injector. These simulation
models were used by the ANP for estimating the reservoir performance under injection of
gas with the CO2 produced in each field at the top of the structure and injection of water at
the bottom of the oil zone. GCA understands that the operator is planning to use wateralternating-gas (WAG) as the standard technique for improving the recovery in these pre-salt
fields.
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 11
The recovery factors in these simulation sector modules, constrained by a Gas Oil
Ratio (GOR) in excess of 20,000 scf/Bbl or basic sediment and water (BS&W) reaching 80%
at the individual well level, resulted in recovery factor values of 30%, 30%, 23% and 14% for
the Tupi, Franco, Iara and Jupiter modules, respectively. GCA used these sector simulation
results, together with the well test results, to establish the expected individual well
performance for use in constructing the production profiles for each field.
Based on the PVT information available, these pre-salt reservoirs are considerably
undersaturated with the exception of Jupiter, which is saturated and has a gas cap with a
high content of CO2 in the gas (75% molar), as well as in the oil (55% molar). This level of
undersaturation would allow a rock and fluid expansion drive mechanism down to the buBble
point pressure, before the need to initiate water injection as an additional recovery
mechanism.
The basic approach used by GCA for estimating the recovery factors under the
natural prevailing drives and water injection, consists of the following:
Calculating the recovery factor down to the buBble point pressure, where
applicable, using material balance methods considering rock and fluids
compressibility;
Estimating the expected recovery under solution gas-drive, from the buBble point
pressure down to an estimated abandonment pressure on the basis of the
minimum value required for lifting, using Arpss correlation; and
Estimating the recovery factor under water injection using Arpss correlation and
assuming that the pressure will be kept at a value some 500 pounds per square
inch gauge (psig) below the buBble point, in order to take advantage of the
creation of some gas saturation that will enhance the reservoirs sweep or
recovery efficiency.
Even though the WAG technique is planned to be implemented in these properties,

there is no experience to judge its applicability under these conditions, therefore, it is only
considered as a possible approach to achieve reasonable sweep efficiency. The planned
injection of the produced CO2 with an equal amount of gas in the top of the structure of the
different fields, could improve the recovery by maintaining the pressure of the reservoir and
additionally, by the benefit of the oil swelling as a result of mixing with the gas. However,
injected gas also could reach the producers earlier than expected creating problems of high
GOR that would limit their oil productivity. In view of this, neither positive nor negative effect
is considered at this time.
In order to estimate values for the Monte Carlo simulation, a triangular distribution for
the recovery factor was assumed, and the Minimum, Most Likely and Maximum values were
established as follows:
The Minimum value considers that the water injection results in no benefits in this
type of reservoir and therefore is not implemented, and that only 60% of the
benefits of the rock and fluids expansion plus 40% of the benefits of the solution
gas drive are attained due to a limited coverage of the wells planned to be drilled
in each field.
The Most Likely value considers that the full effect of the rock and fluid expansion
plus the full effect of the solution gas drive is achieved. The same consideration
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 12
as above is included with regard to water-flooding (i.e. no benefit from water

injection).
The Maximum value considers the benefits of water-flooding or injection as

estimated by the Arps correlation, but affected by 60% volumetric sweep
efficiency, taking into account the difference in conditions for which such
correlation was derived and the ones in these fields.
Productivity indices* from well tests (2 to >100 m3/d/kg/cm2), high initial reservoir
pressures (550-650 kg/cm2) and the results of the Tupi EWT indicate very prolific reservoirs
and high initial production rates (*the volume of oil produced per day per unit decline in well
bottom-hole pressure i.e. rate divided by pressure drawdown). Using the values of initial oil
rate and production performance derived from reservoir simulation results, typical well
performance models were defined for each of the ten areas. These well performance models
were similar to those defined by the ANP.
Table 5
Initial Oil Rate Mbopd/well
Cumulative Oil Prod.(*)

MMBbl/well
Tupi
15
45
NE Tupi
14
44
Peroba
15
43
Iara
10
33
Florim
10
33
Franco
25
91
Libra
25
91
Jupiter
34
Pau Brasil
34
16
61
Field
South Guara
(*) for 30 years of production per well
GCA calculations assumed that all wells were located within a 7 km radius of an
FPSO, except for Florim and South Guara where special considerations for subsea
connections are taken into account.
With regard to the estimation of each respective discoverys and prospects economic
potential or success case Net Present Value, conceptual field development plans were
presented by the ANP and were reviewed and refined as appropriate. The estimated cash
flow generation potential of the respective discovery and prospect development projects
were estimated assuming success. Further details of the individual discovery and prospect
reviews and evaluations are presented in the discovery and prospect descriptions provided
below.
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 13
4.
General Development Concepts
Outline Field Development Plans provided to GCA by the ANP are based upon a
modular development concept using a standard 150,000 bopd processing capacity FPSO
including facilities for CO2 re-injection. These specifications were established on the basis of
the Tupi accumulation characteristics and initial development concepts submitted to the ANP
by the operator, Petrobras.
In addition, the approach adopted assumed the discoveries would be developed in
parallel and include a period of four years for exploration/appraisal. The exception is the
Tupi discovery, where considerable appraisal and long term testing has already been
completed and therefore development is assumed to start in year one. During the four-year
exploration/appraisal period, the MWP established for every property by the ANP must be
completed by the operator.
Each FPSO operates for a maximum of 30 years and in fields where the
development requires more than one FPSO, they are scheduled to enter into operation at a
rate of one per year. The standard FPSO premise is for up to 10 producing wells and up to
10 injection wells.
Areal coverage is based on flow assurance (i.e. the reliability of
uninterrupted production) considerations for the generally waxy crudes resulting in a
maximum well extension of ca 7 km, although it is acknowledged that in excess of 30 wells
could be tied-in to an FPSO.
After considering the sub-optimal employment of standard FPSOs, particularly their
under-utilisation in smaller fields and tiebacks, and/or where initial well rates are reduced
due to reservoir productivity/fluid type considerations, the initial simplified concept has been
modified as follows:
The standard FPSOs are included for Tupi, Franco and Libra. In Tupi the first two
FPSOs already contracted by Petrobras have capacities of 100,000 bopd and 120,000 bopd,
respectively. The South Guara FPSO tieback to Guara has a capacity of 16,000 bopd, whilst
the Florim tieback to Iara is 20,000 bopd. In Peroba and Pau Brasil, the FPSO capacity is
50,000 bopd. In the Jupiter Extension and in NE Tupi, the FPSO capacity is 75,000 bopd
and in the Iara Extension it is 100,000 bopd
The base case premise adopted in the evaluation is that all the gas produced is
destined for injection and requires compression, but not separation from the associated CO2.
At this time no consideration for gas compression for export has been included although
future gas sales are contemplated and these are modeled on the basis of a deemed price at
the wellhead (i.e. on the FPSO and excluding facilities and costs related to gas exports.
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 14
In summary, the Outline Field Development Plan (OFDP) for each accumulation is as
follows:
Table 6
No. of
Capacity of each
No. producers/
Area
FPSOs
FPSO, bopd
No. injectors
km
Franco
150,000
62/62
416
Libra
150,000
92/92
727
1/1/3*
150,000
47/47
649
NE Tupi
75,000
7/7
57
Peroba
50,000
9/9
328
Iara Extension
100,000
65/65
561
Tie-in
20,000
2/2
31
Jupiter Extension
75,000
34/34
567
Pau Brasil
50,000
7/7
104
Tie-in
16,000
1/1
100
Accumulation
Tupi Extension
Florim
South Guara
st
nd
* In Tupi, the 1 FPSO has 100,000 bopd capacity, the 2

150,000 bopd capacity.
has 120,000 bopd and the remaining 3 are all
The Tupi, Iara and Jupiter extensions are considered to be developed as unitized"
(i.e. they are developed in a single integrated concept with the larger accumulations) fields,
and the percentages corresponding to these extensions are based upon the proportion of
OOIP (also applicable to the recoverable volumes) at 2%, 37.6% and 30%, respectively.
The figures shown in each case are for the whole field. The capacities indicated for Florim
and South Guara are the maximum initial requirements.
The resulting production profiles for each one of the fields, in conjunction with the
corresponding profiles of capital expenditure (CAPEX) and operating expense (OPEX) are
presented in the cash flows shown in Appendix I.
5.
Economic Evaluation
The economic evaluation of the Outline Field Development Plan for each discovery was
initiated using CAPEX and OPEX provided by the ANP. These figures were cross-checked
by GCA against current industry experience and validated although in some cases
modifications were made where development was assumed by GCA using smaller FPSOs
than in the data originally provided by the ANP.
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 15
OPEX has a very large fixed component, although it does vary from year to year
driven largely by the number of wells and the respective work-over requirements over
operating life. For smaller capacity FPSOs, the fixed part of OPEX was reduced, while the
variable cost per well was kept constant.
The crude oil price assumed for each of the discoveries and prospects was, at the
ANPs instruction, based on the NYMEX futures curve for Brent crude, adjusted for crude
quality in each discovery or prospect. Each case was also modeled on both with and
without gas export assumptions, although in all cases only Royalties (10%) and Income
Tax (34%) are considered in terms of government take.
The NYMEX Brent futures price as at closing price on 17th August, 2010 provides a
Brent crude price averaging US$81.04/Bbl in 2011, rising to US$92.58/Bbl by 2018. GCA
assumed Brent crude priced inflation of 2% thereafter, and all cost estimates were assumed
to inflate at 2% per annum from 2011 onwards. The Brent oil price is adjusted using a
quality differential (discount) as advised by the ANP of 7.9% for all discoveries and
prospects with the exception of the Jupiter discovery and Pau Brasil prospect where the
differential is larger at 12.5%, reflecting a lower API gravity.
Social Tax / Income Tax has been calculated assuming straight line depreciation of
20 years for the FPSOs and 10 years for the other investments, which GCA understands is
standard practice in Brazil. Extended Well Test costs (treated as OPEX) are estimated at
US$150,000/day for a year, which is the typical duration, and oil production during these
tests is incorporated into revenues. 3D seismic costs (treated as OPEX) are estimated at
US$ 7,500/Sq Km2.
The Base Case was defined as follows:
1 FPSO per year for all fields except South Guara and Florim that will be tied
back to an FPSO of a larger field
The FPSO will have adequate processing capacity for each specific area under
consideration
CAPEX and OPEX were estimated by GCA
Gas sales excluded (as instructed by the ANP)
The difference between the NYMEX closing price on 17th August and the specific
differential (7.9 12.5%) depends upon the crude
2% inflation per year after 2010
Consider only royalties (10%) and income tax (34%), as instructed by the ANP
(no PIS/COFINS)
Income tax based on linear depreciation of 20 years for each of the FPSOs and
10 years for the other assets
The results were presented at different discount rates from 5 to 15% (including a
rate of 6.49% specified by the ANP
The cash flows for each Base Case along with the Net Present Values at different
discount rates, are presented in Appendix I.
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 16
GCA was asked to run several sensitivities to the Base Case in order to demonstrate
the impact on implied US$/Bbl values versus discount rate.
Furthermore, several specific sensitivities were requested by the ANP for Franco.
These cases focused on the impact of a +20% and -20% variation from the GCA Base Case
in discount rate (i.e. from 8 to 12%), oil price, production profile and costs. In addition, the
impact of a one year delay in production start-up, but no delay in expenditure, plus a one
year delay in initial production were also investigated.
Three additional cases were analyzed assuming gas sales in the Base Case and
using a Brent oil price of US$80/BBbl
All the cases can be summarized as follows:
Summary of Different Cases Analysed in this Project.
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 17
Figure 3. Franco NPV (US$/Bbl) vs. Discount Rate

24
2 FPSO NYMEX
22
21.7
FPSO SEC
20
SEC
18
NPV (US$/bbl)
SPE/PRMS
17.3
16
BASE CASE
14
12
10.4
10
8
6
5.4
4
2
0
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%
11%
12%
13%
14%
15%
Discount Rate (%)
Figure 4. Libra NPV (US$/Bbl) vs. Discount Rate

24
2 FPSO NYMEX
22
FPSO SEC
21.0
20
SEC
18
16
NPV (US$/bbl)
SPE/PRMS
16.5
BASE CASE
14
12
10
9.6
8
6
4.8
4
2
0
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%
11%
12%
13%
14%
15%
Discount Rate (%)
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 18
Figure 5. Tupi Extension NPV (US$/Bbl) vs. Discount Rate

24
SEC
22
SPE/PRMS
20
19.3
18
BASE CASE
NPV (US$/bbl)
16
16.0
14
12
10.7
10
8
6.4
6
4
2
0
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%
11%
12%
13%
14%
15%
Discount Rate (%)
Figure 6. North East Tupi NPV (US$/Bbl) vs. Discount Rate

24
SEC
22
SPE/PRMS
20
BASE CASE
18
17.4
NPV (US$/bbl)
16
14.4
14
12
10
9.4
8
6
5.4
4
2
0
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%
11%
12%
13%
14%
15%
Discount Rate (%)
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 19
Figure 7. Peroba NPV (US$/Bbl) vs. Discount Rate

24
SEC
22
SPE/PRMS
20
BASE CASE
18
NPV (US$/bbl)
16
14.5
14
12.1
12
10
8
7.8
6
4.3
4
2
0
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%
11%
12%
13%
14%
15%
Discount Rate (%)
Figure 8. Iara Extension NPV (US$/Bbl) vs. Discount Rate

24
SEC
22
SPE/PRMS
20
BASE CASE
18
NPV (US$/bbl)
16
15.9
14
12.5
12
10
8
7.2
6
4
3.5
2
0
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%
11%
12%
13%
14%
15%
Discount Rate (%)
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 20
Figure 9. Florim NPV (US$/Bbl) vs. Discount Rate

24
SEC
22
SPE/PRMS
20
BASE CASE
18
NPV (US$/bbl)
16
14
13.4
12
11.0
10
8
6.7
6
4
3.1
2
0
-2 5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%
11%
12%
13%
14%
15%
Discount Rate (%)
Figure 10. Jupiter Extension NPV (US$/Bbl) vs. Discount Rate

24
SEC
22
SPE/PRMS
20
BASE CASE
18
NPV (US$/bbl)
16
14
13.0
12
10
9.9
8
6
5.3
2.1
2
0
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%
11%
12%
13%
14%
15%
Discount Rate (%)
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 21
Figure 11. Pau Brasil NPV (US$/Bbl) vs. Discount Rate

24
SEC
22
SPE/PRMS
20
BASE CASE
18
NPV (US$/bbl)
16
14
12.7
12
10
9.9
8
6
5.5
4
2.2
2
0
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%
11%
12%
13%
14%
15%
Discount Rate (%)
Figure 12. South Guara NPV (US$/Bbl) vs. Discount Rate

24
SEC
22
21.2
20
SPE/PRMS
BASE CASE
18.1
18
NPV (US$/bbl)
16
14
12.6
12
10
8
7.6
6
4
2
0
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%
11%
12%
13%
14%
15%
Discount Rate (%)
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 22
Figure 13. Franco Base Case with +/- 20% Variation
NPV variation (US$/bbl)

-3
-2
-1
Discount Rate (+/-20%)
Oil Price (+/-20%)
Production delayed (1 year)
Project delayed (1 year)
Oil Rate (+/-20%)
Costs (+/-20%)
Figure 14. Base Case with Estimate of NYMEX,

Inflation and without Gas Sales per Bbl.
NPV/Oil Barrel, US$/Bbl.
DISCOVERY/PROSPECT
Discount rate
Franco
7.5%
14.87
8.0%
13.83
8.5%
12.87
9.0%
11.99
9.5%
11.18
10.0%
10.44
Libra
14.03
12.99
12.03
11.16
10.36
9.62
Extension Tupi
14.19
13.38
12.63
11.93
11.28
10.67
NE Tupi
12.72
11.97
11.26
10.61
10.00
9.43
Peroba
10.65
10.02
9.42
8.86
8.33
7.84
Extension Iara
10.65
9.85
9.11
8.43
7.81
7.23
Florim
9.56
8.92
8.32
7.76
7.23
6.74
Extension Jupiter
8.28
7.57
6.92
6.33
5.79
5.29
Pau Brasil
8.40
7.73
7.11
6.54
6.01
5.52
Guara Sul
16.31
15.49
14.71
13.97
13.27
12.61
Base Case (Nymex Strip, inflation) - No Gas
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 23
Figure 15. Base Case NYMEX Price Forecast, Inflation with Gas Sales
(US$4/MMBTU in wellhead) for BOE
NPV/Equivalent Barrel, US$/Boe.
DISCOVERY/PROSPECT
Discount rate
Franco
7.5%
13.63
8.0%
12.68
8.5%
11.81
9.0%
11.00
9.5%
10.26
10.0%
9.58
Libra
12.85
11.90
11.03
10.23
9.50
8.83
Extension Tupi
13.14
12.39
11.71
11.06
10.47
9.91
NE Tupi
11.87
11.18
10.53
9.93
9.37
8.84
Peroba
10.14
9.54
8.98
8.45
7.96
7.49
Extension Iara
10.01
9.26
8.58
7.95
7.38
6.85
Florim
9.10
8.51
7.95
7.43
6.94
6.48
Extension Jupiter
8.07
7.40
6.78
6.21
5.69
5.22
Pau Brasil
8.23
7.59
6.99
6.45
5.94
5.47
Guara Sul
15.32
14.55
13.82
13.14
12.48
11.86
Base Case (Nymex Strip, inflation) - Gas (80%)
Figure 16. Oil Price US$80, without Inflation nor Gas Sales, per Bbl.

DISCOVERY/PROSPECT
Discount rate
Franco
7.5%
11.33
8.0%
10.56
8.5%
9.85
9.0%
9.20
9.5%
8.60
10.0%
8.04
Libra
10.48
9.72
9.03
8.40
7.81
7.28
Extension Tupi
11.47
10.84
10.26
9.71
9.20
8.72
NE Tupi
10.16
9.57
9.02
8.50
8.02
7.57
Peroba
8.34
7.84
7.38
6.94
6.53
6.18
Extension Iara
7.94
7.35
6.80
6.30
5.84
5.42
Florim
7.38
6.87
6.38
5.93
5.50
5.06
Extension Jupiter
5.88
5.37
4.91
4.48
4.09
3.73
Pau Brasil
6.09
5.59
5.12
4.69
4.29
3.92
Guara Sul
13.35
12.68
12.04
11.43
10.86
10.15
80 US$/bbl Oil Price Flat, no inflation - No Gas
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 24
Figure 17. Oil Price US$80, without Inflation, with Gas Sales
(US$4/MMBTU in wellhead) for BOE

DISCOVERY/PROSPECT
Discount rate
Franco
7.5%
10.39
8.0%
9.69
8.5%
9.04
9.0%
8.45
9.5%
7.90
10.0%
7.39
Libra
9.61
8.92
8.29
7.71
7.18
6.68
Extension Tupi
10.65
10.08
9.54
9.04
8.57
8.12
NE Tupi
9.51
8.96
8.45
7.98
7.54
7.12
Peroba
8.12
7.63
7.18
6.76
6.36
5.99
Extension Iara
7.49
6.94
6.44
5.98
5.55
5.16
Florim
7.15
6.66
6.20
5.77
5.37
4.99
Extension Jupiter
5.78
5.29
4.84
4.43
4.06
3.71
Pau Brasil
6.02
5.53
5.09
4.67
4.29
3.94
Guara Sul
12.48
11.83
11.21
10.63
10.08
9.56
80 US$/bbl Oil Price Flat, no inflation - Gas (80%)
GCA presents in appendix VI the analysis of a base Case (for different taxes of
discounting), with and without gas sales, considering 0.5% on gross invoicing of research
and development.
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 25
DISCOVERIES CONTINGENT RESOURCES

The four discoveries that include the Tupi extension, the Iara extension, the Jupiter
extension and Franco are discussed separately in the following section. As a general
comment, the Base Salt / Top Reservoir pick, pre- and post-drilling, in the 9 wells in the
studied area where such data was available, lies within a range of -22 m (shallow to
prognosis) to +26 m (deep to prognosis). This error range is entirely reasonable given the
depths of such picks at around -5,000 mss. Oil Water Contact (OWC) depths, confirmed by
log and pressure gradient data, range from -5,113 mss in Tupi to -5,761 mss in Franco.
1.
Tupi Including Extension to the South
1.1
Overview
1.2
The Tupi accumulation is located in water depths of approximately 2,100 m,

about 300 km due south of Rio de Janeiro (Figure 18). Tupi is mapped almost
wholly within concession BM-S-11, except for a small portion which lies beyond
the concession boundary to the south, the Tupi Extension.
Tupi was discovered in 2006 by the exploration well 1-BRSA-369A-RJS which

found the Cretaceous pre-salt interval (Sag and Upper Syn-Rift) oil-bearing.
Tupi was subsequently appraised by 4 additional wells: 3-BRSA-496-RJS, 3BRSA-755A-RJS, 9-BRSA-716-RJS and 3-BRSA-795-RJS.
Geological Model
The Tupi reservoir section includes microbial and stromatolitic carbonates of the
Sag Sequence and underlying limestone coquinas of the late Syn-Rift Sequence.
Depth structure mapping of the Tupi field is based on 3D PSDM seismic data,
while the small structural extension to the south is based on 2D PSDM seismic
data (4 km x 8 km line spacing).
The seismic mapping, in particular the top reservoir / Base Salt horizon, was
reviewed by GCA and was found to be acceptable in most areas, except in the
southernmost crestal area (see section below).
The Base Salt is well-imaged on seismic data and with 5 well data points across
Tupi (the most on any of the Pre-Salt fields in the Santos Basin), the top structure
is fairly well defined.
Tupi is a very large NE-SW trending accumulation with an areal closure of 785
km2, extending some 50 km in length and up to 20 km in width and located at the
eastern margin of the OHSB. Top reservoir is at a depth of approximately -4,900
mss, with a most likely OWC at -5,113 mss. The structure as mapped is not filled
to the spill-point, which is at a depth of about -5,625 mss.
In the southern crestal area, immediately to the north of the Tupi Extension, GCA
considers that the prospective Sag and Syn-Rift intervals were either eroded or
not deposited on the basement high, therefore, this crestal area was excluded
from the volumetric estimate. This reduction has no impact on the GRV of the
Tupi Extension (to the south) which comprises about 2% of the total GRV of the
Tupi accumulation as estimated here.
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 26
1.3
1.4
The ANP has revealed the operators simulation model maps, which include
several NE-SW trending faults, sub-parallel to the regional NE-SW structural
trend that may serve to compartmentalise and affect oil recovery from the field.
However, pressure test data indicates hydraulic communication across the field,
both vertically and laterally.
Estimation of Oil-in-Place
The GRV range is based upon GCAs review of the seismic data available and
derived from the ANPs Petrel model.
Based on the well log data made available by the ANP and in consideration of
other analogous discoveries and prospects, plus a limited amount of regional well
data, GCA considers that the mean formation evaluation input parameters for
volumetric estimation are as follows: porosity 11%, oil saturation 80%, N/G 79%.
Standard deviation for the porosity and oil saturation, standard error of the mean
for N/G and their bases are specified for each discovery and prospect in the
Formation Evaluation in Appendix V.
Based on the PVT data provided, GCA considers that a reasonable range of FVF
is 1.47 stock tank barrel per reservoir barrel (stb/rb) to 1.63 stb/rb, and the GOR
lies between 1,204 standard cubic feet per barrel (scf/Bbl) and 1,472 scf/Bbl.
OOIP for the Tupi Extension ranges from a Low Estimate of 0.08 BBbl to a High
Estimate of 0.32 BBbl with a Best Estimate of 0.18 BBbl.
Resource Estimate
The estimated recovery factor, considering a depletion and water injection

production system, is estimated to be between 8% and 41%, with a most likely
value of 21% for the 28 API oil.
The OFDP based upon a modular FPSO approach, has not yet been approved
by the ANP. Therefore, no reserves can be ascribed to the Tupi discovery at this
time
Rounded Contingent Resources (BBbl) for the Tupi Extension are estimated as
follows:
Table 7: Rounded Contingent Resources (BBbl)
1.5
1C
2C
3C
0.01
0.04
0.08
Development Plan and Economic Analysis
The production from the Tupi Extension will be 36.8 millions of barrels. It is a
small part (ca 2%) of the greater Tupi development program that will use 5
FPSOs and a have a total of 94 wells.
The unrisked NPV 10% for the 2C resource success case is US$393 million
equivalent to US$10.67/Bbl.
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 27
Figure 18. Tupi Discovery Location Map
Figure 19. Extension of Tupi Discovery to the South (Base Salt Depth)
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 28
2.
Iara Including the Extension
2.1
Overview
2.2
2.3
The Iara discovery is located in water depths of approximately 2,200 m, about

300 km south of Rio de Janeiro. As currently mapped, 323 km2 of Iara lies within
the retained portion of concession BM-S-11 and 189 km2 in open acreage.
Iara was discovered in September 2008 by the exploration well 1-BRSA-618-RJS

which found the Cretaceous pre-salt interval (Sag and Upper Syn-Rift) oilbearing.
Geological Model
The Iara reservoir section includes microbial and stromatolitic carbonates of the
Sag Sequence and underlying limestone coquinas of the late Syn-Rift Sequence.
Depth structure mapping of the Iara field is based on 3D PSDM seismic data. A
combination of generally poorer seismic data quality and greater structural
complexity makes the Base Salt interpretation at Iara less reliable than other
prospects and discoveries in the area.
The Iara discovery is located between the Tupi discovery to the south and the
Franco discovery to the north.
reviewed by GCA and found to be less reliable than other prospects and
discoveries in this area.
As mapped, Iara is a large, 561 km2, accumulation that is very roughly circular in
shape.
Iara comprises three separate highs that make up the greater
culmination.
Top reservoir is at a depth of approximately -5,100 mss, with a
most likely OWC at -5,725 mss based on the 1-BRSA-618-RJS discovery well.
Though the Iara discovery was validated by the 1-BRSA-618-RJS well its
definition is imprecise. Both the eastern and northern flanks are only defined
using 2D seismic. Again, this coupled with the less reliable Base Salt
interpretation make the understanding of the Iara structure more uncertain than
other features in the area.
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 29
2.4
The Iara net reservoir cut off is based on a permeability of 0.1 md for the base
case. This value is derived from well test data, which indicated that Iara has
poorer reservoir quality than other pre-salt fields in the area, albeit these well
tests demonstrate that reservoir with permeability as low as 0.01 md contributed
to flow.
is 1.43 stb/rb to 1.57 stb/rb and the GOR lies between 1,035 scf/Bbl and 1,265
scf/Bbl.
Original Oil In Place (OOIP) for the Iara Extension ranges from a Low Estimate of
2.3 BBbl to a High Estimate of 6.7 BBbl with a Best Estimate of 4.1 BBbl.
Resource Estimate

by the ANP. Therefore, no reserves can be ascribed to the Iara discovery at this
time..
Rounded Contingent Resources (BBbl) for the Iara Extension are estimated as
follows:
Table 8 Rounded Contingent Resources (BBbl)
2.5
1C
2C
3C
0.38
0.76
1.43
The Iara extension (38%) of the total fields 2C EUR is estimated to be 755 MM
Bbl. This will be produced through 4 FPSOs each with 100,000 bopd capacity
and 65 production and 65 injection wells with production at initial rates of 10,000
bopd/well.
The unrisked NPV 10 for the 2C resource success case is US$5,460 million
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 30
Figure 20. Iara Discovery Location Map
Figure 21. Extension of the Iara Discovery Map (Base Salt Depth)
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 31
3.
Jupiter Including the Extension
3.1
Overview
3.2
3.3
The Jupiter accumulation is located in water depths of approximately 2,200 m,

about 300 km south of Rio de Janeiro. Jupiter as mapped is partially (63%) within
concession BM-S-24 with the remaining 37% outside the concession to the west
and south in open acreage.
Jupiter was discovered in 2008 by the exploration well 1-BRSA-559A-RJS which

found the Cretaceous pre-salt interval (Sag and Upper Syn-Rift) containing both
oil (65 m gross) and a large amount of gas (285 m gross) a great deal of which is
CO2 (79% molar).
Geological Model
The Jupiter reservoir section includes microbial and stromatolitic carbonates of

the Sag Sequence and underlying limestone coquinas of the late Syn-Rift
Sequence.
A large majority of the depth structure mapping of the Jupiter field is based on 3D
PSDM seismic data. A small portion of the southern extension that is outside the
current block was defined using the 2D PSDM data set.
reviewed by GCA and was found to be acceptable.
Jupiter is a large NE-SW trending accumulation with an areal closure of 567 km2,
extending some 40 km in length and up to 20 km wide and located on the
western margin of the prominent paleo-deep that marks the eastern edge of the
current pre-salt discoveries and prospects.
Top reservoir is at a depth of approximately -5,000 mss, with a GOC at 5,370

mss and an OWC at 5,435 mss.
The gas cap encountered at Jupiter contains a high concentration of CO2 (79%
molar) and the oil in Jupiter is relatively heavy at 18API, compared to the
surrounding pre-salt fields that contain under saturated oils with APIs ranging
from 27 - 28.
The variation in both gas content and hydrocarbon types is thought to be due to
Jupiters position on the western edge of the large paleo deep. The large amount
of CO2 seen in Jupiter is thought to have originated from inorganic basement
rocks that channel the CO2 up deep seated faults that define the western edge of
the paleo-deep.
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 32
3.4
is 1.29 stb/rb to 1.42 stb/rb, and the GOR lies between 826 scf/Bbl and 1,010
scf/Bbl.
OOIP) for the Jupiter Extension ranges from a Low Estimate of 1.21 BBbl to a
High Estimate of 2.57 BBbl with a Best Estimate of 1.83 BBbl.
Resource Estimate

by the ANP. Therefore, no reserves can be ascribed to the Jupiter discovery at
this time.
Rounded Contingent Resources (BBbl) for the Jupiter Extension are estimated as
follows:
3.5
1C
2C
3C
0.17
0.34
0.58
The Jupiter extension (30%) of the total fields 2C EUR is estimated to be 335
MM Bbl. This will be produced through 10 production and 10 injection wells with
production at initial rates of 8,000 bopd/well and tied back to its percentage of 3
FPSOs with 75,000 bopd capacity.
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 33
Figure 22. Jupiter Discovery Location Map
Figure 23. Extension of Jupiter Discovery Location Map (Base Salt Depth)
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 34
4.
Franco
4.1
Overview
4.2
4.3
The Franco discovery is located in water depths of approximately 2,000 m, about

200 km south of Rio de Janeiro. The large 416 km2 area of Franco closure lies
entirely in open acreage.
Franco was discovered in 2010 by ANP exploration well 2-ANP-1_RJS which

found the Cretaceous pre-salt interval (Sag and Upper Syn-Rift) oil-bearing at a
depth of -5,389 mss. The 2_ANP-1-RJS well is reported to have tested 50,000
bopd from the pre-salt reservoir.
Geological Model
The Franco reservoir section includes microbial and stromatolitic carbonates of

the Sag Sequence and underlying limestone coquinas of the late Syn-Rift
Sequence.
Depth structure mapping of the Franco discovery is based on a combination of

3D PSDM seismic data and the 4 km x 8 km 2D PSDM regional seismic grid.
reviewed by GCA and found to be generally acceptable. The eastern flank is
defined based only on the 2D seismic grid, but is thought to be reliably
positioned. Franco has been successfully tested by the 2_ANP-1-RJS well which
penetrated 377 m of gross pre-salt interval / 315 m net pay.
Pressure data suggest hydraulic communication between the microbial Sag and
the underlying Syn-Rift coquina carbonates.
A successful well test was carried out across the top section of coquinas, but
results of the total testing program were not available for this review.
As mapped at Base Salt, Franco is an oddly shaped feature interpreted to be the

result of a combination of the northeast/southwest and northwest/southeast
structural trends. The mapped top reservoir is at a depth of approximately -5,200
mss, with a well defined OWC at 5,761 mss.
Mapping at Franco is considered relatively immature. 3D seismic coverage over

Franco should be completed and a more detailed mapping exercise undertaken
to better define internal fault trends that could affect lateral reservoir
communication.
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 35
4.4
is 1.43 to 1.58 stb/rb, and the GOR lies between 1,035 scf/Bbl and 1,265 scf/Bbl.
OOIP for the Franco discovery ranges from a Low Estimate of 14.64 BBbl to a
Resource Estimate

by the ANP. Therefore, no reserves can be ascribed to the Franco discovery at
this time.
Rounded Contingent Resources (BBbl) for the Franco discovery are estimated as
follows:
1C
2C
3.11
4.5
3C
5.44
8.99
Franco will require 6 FPSOs with 62 production and 62 injection wells to recover
the 2C resources of 5,388 MM of barrels at an initial rate of 25,000 bopd/well.
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 36
Figure 24. Franco Discovery Location Map
Figure 25. Franco Discovery Map (Base Salt Depth)
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 37
PROSPECTS PROSPECTIVE RESOURCES

The six undrilled prospects reviewed in this report include: two small features, South
Guara and Florim, that will be tied-back to larger discoveries; three intermediate sized
prospects, North East Tupi, Peroba and Pau Brasil, that will have independent development
systems; and one giant prospect, Libra, that is currently being drilled by Petrobras on behalf
of the ANP.
1.
Libra
1.1
Overview
1.2
The Libra prospect is located in water depths of approximately 2,000 m, about

200 km south of Rio de Janeiro. Libra lies in entirely open acreage to the east of
the Franco discovery.
The Libra prospect was expected to be tested in 2010 with the 2-ANP-2_RJS
well. Unfortunately that well encountered mechanical problems in the shallow
post salt section and had to be abandoned. At the time of this report ANP was
drilling a second well in Libra very near the original well location that will test the
pre-salt section.
Geological Model
The Libra reservoir section is expected to include microbial and stromatolitic

carbonates of the Sag Sequence and underlying limestone coquinas of the late
Syn-Rift Sequence similar to those encountered at Franco.
Depth structure mapping of the Libra prospect is based on a combination of 3D

PSDM seismic data and the 4 km x 8 km 2D PSDM seismic grid. Though the
eastern lobe of the Libra prospect is only covered by 2D seismic, the structure is
considered to be reliably defined. The current mapping is considered to be
relatively reliable due to the large areal size of Libra, over 700 km2, and the
prominence of the structure with over 500 m of mapped vertical relief, which may
prove to be the result of a reefal build-up.
reviewed by GCA and found to be acceptable. The Libra prospect also appears
to be structurally related to the Franco discovery. This relationship adds to the
confidence in mapping at Libra and thus lowers the geologic risk.
Libra is a large (727 km2) NE-SW / NW-SE trending prospect located

approximately 25 km to the east of the Franco discovery. Like Franco, the Libra
structure appears to be the result of the two regional structural trends. Top
reservoir is mapped at a depth of approximately 5,200 mss, with a Base Salt
closing contour at 5,800 mss giving Libra a maximum vertical closure of 600 m.
The Libra prospect contains two lobes. The western lobe which is defined by 3D
seismic is oriented NE/SW. This is the area that is being tested by the current
exploration well. A second lobe lies to the east and has a NW/SE orientation.
This second feature is mapped using only 2D data but is considered to be
sufficiently well-imaged to be included as part of the Libra feature.
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 38
1.3
1.4
Due to the lack of 3D seismic data over the entire feature, the depth structure
mapping of Libra is relatively immature; however, the current exploration well is
located within the 3D area of cover.
is 1.43 stb/rb to 1.58 stb/rb, and the GOR lies between 1,035 scf/Bbl and 1,265
scf/Bbl.
OOIP for the Libra prospect ranges from a Low Estimate of 16.32 BBbl to a High
Resource Estimate

Rounded Prospective Resources (BBbl) for the Libra prospect are estimated as
follows:
Table 11 Rounded Prospective Resources (BBbl)
1.5
Low
Best
High
3.65
7.91
15.07
Libra will require 9 FPSOs linked to 92 production wells and 92 injection wells to
recover the Best Estimate resources of 7,877 MMBbl at an initial rate of 25,000
bopd/well.
The unrisked NPV 10 for the Best Estimate resource success case is US$75,785
million equivalent to US$9.62/Bbl.
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 39
Figure 26. Libra Prospect Location Map
Figure 27. Libra Prospect Map (Base Salt Depth)
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 40
2.
North East Tupi
2.1
Overview
2.2
2.3
The NE Tupi prospect is located in water depths of approximately 2,100 m, about

250 km south of Rio de Janeiro, entirely within open acreage.
NE Tupi is approximately 20 km northeast of the Tupi field that was discovered in

2006 by the exploration well 1-BRSA-369A-RJS which found the Cretaceous presalt interval (Sag and Upper Syn-Rift) oil-bearing. Due to its close association
with Tupi it has been used as an analog for the NE Tupi prospect.
Geological Model
The NE Tupi prospect reservoir section is expected to include microbial and

stromatolitic carbonates of the Sag Sequence and underlying limestone coquinas
of the late Syn-Rift Sequence similar to Tupi.
Depth structure mapping of the NE Tupi prospect is based primarily on 3D PSDM

seismic data. The definition of NE Tupis eastern flank is partially based on 2D
PSDM seismic data (4 km x 8 km line spacing).
reviewed by GCA and was found to be acceptable.
The Base Salt is well-imaged on seismic data. NE Tupis close structural

relationship to the Tupi discovery adds confidence to the mapping of this feature.
NE Tupi is a significant high along trend with the NE-SW trending Tupi discovery.
NE Tupi has an areal extent of 60 km2 as mapped with a spill point of -5,625 mss.
The crest of NE Tupi is mapped at -5,000 mss which gives the structure over 600
m of total vertical relief.
As NE Tupi is near the western flank of a major paleo-deep that is thought to be

the source of CO2 found in varying amounts in all the fields in this area, the
possibility exists that large quantities of CO2 similar to Jupiter (Jupiter field has
79% CO2 in a significant gas cap) may be present. However, GCA has used
similar reservoir and hydrocarbon properties as Tupi in its analysis due to their
close structural association.
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 41
2.4
is 1.47 stb/rb and 1.63 stb/rb, and the GOR lies between 1,204 scf/Bbl and 1,472
scf/Bbl.
OOIP for the NE Tupi prospect ranges from a Low Estimate of 0.63 BBbl to a
Resource Estimate

Rounded Prospective Resources (BBbl) for the NE Tupi prospect are estimated
as follows:
Table 12: Rounded Prospective Resources (BBbl)
2.5
Low
Best
High
0.12
0.3
0.65
NE Tupi will require 1 FPSO linked to 7 production wells and 7 injection wells to
recover the Best Estimate resource of 311 MMBbl at an initial rate of 14,000
bopd/well.
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 42
Figure 28. North East Tupi Prospect Location Map
Figure 29. North East Tupi Prospect Map (Base Salt Depth)
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 43
3.
Peroba
3.1
Overview
3.2
3.3
The Peroba prospect is located in water depths of approximately 2,100 m, about

300 km south of Rio de Janeiro, in open acreage.
Peroba is on trend with the Tupi discovery to the northeast which discovered oil
bearing, pre-salt carbonates in 2006.
Although the Peroba prospect is only mapped with 2D PSDM seismic data, it is
considered to be a well imaged structure with significant 4 way dip closure at the
Base Salt level.
Peroba is a relatively tight northeast oriented anticline with its crest at 5,100 m
and over 1,000 m of vertical closure at the Base Salt / Top Reservoir marker.
GCA used only 400 m of closure in defining the original oil in-place volume based
on discussions with ANP regarding expectations of spill point.
Geological Model
The Peroba reservoir is expected to include a section very similar to that

penetrated at the Tupi discovery, which consists of microbial and stromatolitic
carbonates of the Sag sequence and underlying limestone coquinas of the late
Syn-Rift sequence.
Depth structure mapping of the Peroba prospect is based on 2D PSDM seismic

grid with a 4 km x 8 km line spacing.
reviewed by GCA and was found to be acceptable. Although it is recommended
that 3D data be acquired prior to drilling Peroba, the structure is considered to be
well imaged based on the current 2D data set.
Peroba is a large NE-SW trending anticline with an areal extent of approximately

350 km2 extending some 35 km in length and up to 13 km in width and located 20
km to the southwest and along trend with the Tupi discovery.
volumetric estimation are as follows: porosity 8%, oil saturation 74%, N/G 66%
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 44
3.4
is 1.47 stb/rb and 1.63 stb/rb, and the GOR lies between 1,204 scf/Bbl and 1,472
scf/Bbl.
OOIP for the Peroba prospect ranges from a Low Estimate of 0.81 BBbl to a High
Resource Estimate

Rounded Prospective Resources (Bbl) for the Peroba prospect are estimated as
follows:
Table 13: Rounded Prospective Resources (Bbl)
3.5
Low
Best
High
0.15
0.38
0.81
Based on its areal extension, Peroba will require 2 FPSOs with a capacity of
50.000 bopd linked to 9 production wells and 9 injection wells, to recover the Best
Estimate resource of 364 MM Bbl at an initial rate of 14,500 bopd/well.
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 45
Figure 30. Peroba Prospect Location Map
Figure 31. Peroba Prospect Map (Base Salt Depth)
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 46
4.
Pau Brasil
4.1
Overview
4.2
4.3
The Pau Brasil prospect is located in water depths of approximately 2,200 m,

about 300 km south of Rio de Janeiro in open acreage.
Pau Brasil is located ca 10 km to the east/southeast of the Jupiter discovery
Geological Model
The reservoir section is expected to be similar to Jupiter and include microbial

and stromatolitic carbonates of the Sag Sequence and underlying limestone
coquinas of the late Syn-Rift Sequence.
The Pau Brasil depth structure map is based on 2D PSDM seismic data with a 4
km x 8 km line spacing.
reviewed by GCA and was found to be acceptable based on the available 2D
seismic data.
Pau Brasil is a significant feature covering an area of about 104 km2 with in
excess of 1,000 m of vertical closure from its crest to a spill point at a depth of
6,500 mss.
The Base Salt is well-imaged on seismic data. Pau Brasil is a north/south aligned
anticline that is positioned on the west flank of the deep basement low that is
thought to be the source of CO2 seen in all the fields in this area.
The proximity of Pau Brasil to the Jupiter discovery and their similar structural
locations relative to the deep basin low, suggests that Pau Brasil may be
analogous to Jupiter and contain a gas cap with high levels of CO2 and a lower
gravity, 18API oil.
An alternative Pau Brasil interpretation is that the extremely deep, field-bounding

fault system that marks the eastern limit of Jupiter is the conduit required for the
high CO2 charge in that structure and as such faults have not been defined at
Pau Brasil, the Jupiter analogy may be incorrect. Should Tupi be a better analog
for Pau Brasil, lower volumes of gas and greater volume of oil could be present in
this feature.
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 47
4.4
is 1.29 stb/rb and 1.43 stb/rb, and the GOR lies between 826 scf/Bbl and 1,010
scf/Bbl.
OOIP for the Pau Brasil prospect ranges from a Low Estimate of 0.7 BBbl to a
Resource Estimate

Rounded Prospective Resources (BBbl) for the Pau Brasil prospect are estimated
as follows:
4.5
Low
Best
High
0.1
0.2
0.5
Based on its relatively small areal extent, Pau Brasil will require 1 FPSO with a
capacity of 50,000 bopd linked to 7 production wells and 7 injection wells to
recover the Best Estimate resources of 242 MMBbl at an initial rate of 8,000
bopd/well.
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 48
Figure 32. Pau Brasil Prospect Location Map
Figure 33. Pau Brasil Prospect Map (Base Salt Depth)
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 49
5.
South Guara
5.1
Overview
5.2
5.3
The South Guara prospect is located in water depths of approximately 2,100 m,

about 300 km due south of Rio de Janeiro and is mapped entirely on a 4 km x 8
km grid of 2D PSDM seismic data in open acreage.
South Guara lies to the south/southeast of the Guara discovery, slightly offset,
but along trend. The Guara discovery well, (1-BRSA-594-SPS) penetrated 136m
gross of pre-salt reservoir with an average N/G ratio of 88%.
Geological Model
The South Guara reservoir section is expected to include fractured microbial and
stromatolitic carbonates of the Sag Sequence and underlying limestone coquinas
of the late Syn-Rift sequence.
Depth structure mapping of the South Guara is based on a 2D PSDM seismic

data grid with a 4 km x 8 km line spacing.
reviewed by GCA and found to be acceptable.
The Base Salt is well-imaged on seismic data and this structure looks very similar
to the Guara discovery which is 9 km to the northwest of South Guara and has
two successful well tests.
South Guara is a small, N-S elongated high that appears to be structurally related
to a transpressional fault system that also formed Guara. As mapped South
Guara has a closed area of only 100 km2 at its maximum spill point and
approximately 150 m of vertical closure.
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 50
5.4
is 1.48 stb/rb to 1.64 stb/rb, and the GOR lies between 1,204 scf/Bbl and 1,472
scf/Bbl.
OOIP for the South Guara prospect ranges from a Low Estimate of 0.1 BBbl to a
Resource Estimate

Rounded Prospective Resources (BBbl) for the South Guara prospect are
estimated as follows:
5.5
Low
Best
High
0.02
0.06
0.12
South Guara will only require 1 production well and 1 injection to recover the Best
Estimate resource of 58 MMBbl at an initial rate of 16,000 bopd. The wells will be
tied back to a single FPSO (using 15% of its capacity) located on Guara.
The unrisked NPV 10 for the Best Estimate resource success case is US$732
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 51
Figure 34. South Guara Prospect Location Map
Figure 35. South Guara Prospect Map (Base Salt Depth)
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 52
6.
Florim
6.1
Overview
6.2
6.3
The Florim prospect is located in water depths of approximately 2,000 m about

300 km south of Rio de Janeiro in open acreage and less than 10 km north of the
Iara discovery.
Iara was discovered in September 2008 by the exploration well 1-BRSA-618-RJS

which found the Cretaceous pre-salt interval (Sag and Upper Syn-Rift) oilbearing.
Geological Model
The expected reservoir section in Florim includes microbial and stromatolitic

carbonates of the Sag Sequence and underlying limestone coquinas of the late
Syn-Rift Sequence.
Depth structure mapping of the Florim prospect is based on 3D PSDM seismic

data. A combination of generally poorer seismic data quality and greater
structural complexity makes the Base Salt interpretation at Florim less reliable
than other prospects and discoveries in the area.
reviewed by GCA and found to be less reliable than other prospects and
discoveries in this area.
Florim is a north-south elongate feature, dip-closed with a northern and southern

culmination separated by a saddle. The saddle is within spill closure (31 km2),
but is overlain by a relatively thin salt section, which adds seal risk.
volumetric estimation are as follows: porosity 10%, oil saturation 76%, N/G 57%
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 53
6.4
is 1.43 stb/rb and 1.58 stb/rb, and the GOR lies between 1,035 scf/Bbland 1,265
scf/Bbl.
OOIP for Florim range from a Low Estimate of 0.2 BBbl to a High Estimate of 0.7
BBbl with a Best Estimate of 0.4 BBbl.
Resource Estimate

Rounded Prospective Resources (BBbl) for the Florim prospect are estimated as
follows:
6.5
Low
Best
High
0.03
0.07
0.14
Given the small size of this prospect, only 2 production and 2 injection wells will
be needed to recover the Best Estimate resource of 65 MMBbl, producing at
initial rates of 10,000 bopd/well. The wells will be tied-back to one of the Iara
FPSOs using no more than 15% of its 100,000 bopd capacity.
The unrisked NPV 10 for the Best Estimate resource success case is US$438
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 54
Figure 36. Florim Prospect Location Map
Figure 37. Florim Prospect Map (Base Salt Depth)
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 55
CORROBORATION OF CASH FLOW ANALYSIS

The underlying objective of this analysis is the derivation of volumes/values for the
prospects and discoveries in the Contract Area.
The valuation of petroleum properties typically involves the consideration of multiple
approaches which ideally, though in practice not that frequently, yield similar results. Rarely
is there a third-party transaction involving the subject property that is sufficiently similar in
nature and time that allows a direct measure of market value. Occasionally there will be
transactions offset in either or both of proximity and time, or ones that are not third-party
transactions, that may assist as value indicators. In the absence of such direct indicators, a
commonly used approach is to estimate the future cash flow generating potential of a
property, adjusting this for risk and the time value of money, and assessing value by
rationalizing the results with such other approaches as are available.
In the case of the Contract Area, the prospects and discoveries are all in the
emerging pre-salt play in the Santos basin. As discussed elsewhere, there have been
several large discoveries in the pre-salt but, to date no commercial production has been
established. In addition to a lack of production performance data, GCA was unable to
uncover reliable information from market transactions on any of the discoveries that might be
used to reasonably infer value for the prospects and discoveries in the Contract Area.
In this section, other potential indicators of value are assessed. Before assessing
these other indicators it is important to note that GCAs work is not an assessment of fair
market value. Fair market value is generally defined as "the price at which the property
would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller neither being under
compulsion to buy or to sell and both having knowledge of relevant facts." In most cases a
arms length tes will also apply (acknowledging that where buyer and seller are in any way
related the value agreed may not be what would be achieved in a free and open market).
In this case, the conditions of the proposed transaction (the conveyance of the Contract Area
is available only to Petrobras, who must operate it) it is not a completely arms length
transaction because of the States role as both owner of the resource being conveyed as
well as a significant and controlling owner of the conveyer.
1.
Comparable Transactions
GCA has identified only 3 transactions that might reasonably be indicative of market
value in Brazils pre-salt play.
Anadarkos 2008 sale to Statoil which comprised 50% interest in Peregrino
discovery and 25% interest in Kaskida discovery in the Gulf of Mexico for a reported US$2.1
billion, implying a per barrel value indicator of US$7/Bbl.
Statoils 2010 sale of 40% interest in the same Peregrino discovery to Sinochem for a
reported US$3.07 billion, implying a per barrel value indicator of US$15-19/Bbl.
In addition there is an ongoing (not yet closed) transaction announced in March 2010
between Devon and BP which comprises a mix of assets, including interests in Brazils presalt play for a reported US$7 billion. Because there is no definitive information on the
allocation of value between properties and because of the wide range of volumes quoted for
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 56
the assets in Brazil , there is little than can be inferred other than the likely valuation for the
pre-salt property lies in the (wide) range of US$5-12/Bbl.
2.
Implied Equity Valuations
GCA also sought to corroborate the valuations implied in the discounted cash flow
analysis through an analysis of changes in the valuations of the securities of the companies
with the most significant interests in the pre-salt, as a function of the discoveries as they
were announced. While, in theory, the prices observed in the stock market will reflect all
known information in the market (the efficient markets hypothesis), in practice a direct
indication of the value of the pre-salt discoveries by virtue of changes in the companies
stock price is, at best, tenuous.
Notwithstanding, GCA analysed the performance of the equities of Petrobras, BG,
GALP and Repsol during the period September 10, 2007 to end-June 2010 to infer how
much value the market as a whole appeared to be attributing to the pre-salt discoveries. To
do this, GCA took the stock market performance of these companies and then adjusted them
to remove the impact of: (i) general systematic movements in the stock market; (ii)
movements caused by a (at that time) rapidly escalating oil price and (iii) changes in foreign
exchange rates. These changes were made by adjusting the share price of each into US
Dollars at the rate prevailing each day, and using an index of the share price of ExxonMobil,
BP, Shell, Total, ChevronTexaco and ConocoPhillips as a surrogate for both stock market
movement and movement applicable to oil and gas companies.
Clearly there are many complications to such an analysis and, when considering that
the period being assessed contains huge fluctuations in the prices of oil (from US$80/Bbl up
to over US$140/Bbl, down to approximately US$40 and then back up to near US$80) and a
global financial crisis of unprecedented proportions, the results can be considered indicative
at best.
Bearing this caveat in mind, the markets appear to have ascribed in the order of
US$80 100 billion to Petrobras and US$15-20 billion to BG as a result of the pre-salt
discoveries, after taking into account adjustments for changes in the stock market generally
and oil majors specifically, as described above.
Based on the size of discoveries being quoted in publicly available sources this
would imply that the market is valuing the discoveries at approximately US$7-8/Bbl.
However, the market would most likely have assumed that the fiscal conditions for the
production of these volumes would be under Brazils standard terms (i.e. reflecting the
imposition of the Special Participation and PIS/COFINS as well as standard income taxes
and royalties.) If the valuation were adjusted to reflect the terms under the Cesso Onerosa,
(i.e, companies are relieved of Special Participation and PIS/COFINS) GCA estimates the
per-barrel valuation would rise to approximately US$9-10/Bbl.
While the mathematics of such calculations are relatively straightforward, the perbarrel valuation numbers are highly dependent on the assumptions in the calculation; in
particular the size of the discoveries being assumed. As such, they should be treated as
lending directional rather than dispositive support.
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE

ANP
th
September 15 . 2010
Page 57
3.
Equity Valuation and GCA Cash Flow Analysis
As noted earlier, while the implied equity valuation exercise may contribute to an
appreciation of underlying value, in and of itself it is not an assessment of a classical fair
market value of the resources to be conveyed to Petrobras. In GCAs view the market will
not ascribe as much value to certain exploration and production rights in the pre-salt as it
might under other circumstances because of the conditions attached to it (Petrobras
mandatory operatorship and required minimum interest of 30%, as well as its apparent
illiquidity - unlike most petroleum properties, it may not be easily sold or otherwise
leveraged). GCA believes that the market will assess a discount for this illiquidity as well as
the heightened risk of delays and cost overruns resulting from an operator that may (or are
perceived to) be over-extended from both technical and funding perspectives as a result of
its unique rights (and obligations) in the development of these significant resources.
Further, in GCAs experience, the value that could be obtained for the properties will
not be as high as that which might be realized if they were exposed to the market at large.
There is ample evidence from other petroleum property transactions that the high or winning
bid in a competitive auction is considerably higher than the mean of the bids placed. GCA
would expect the premium reflecting a full market valuation could be on the order of 2030% for the larger properties and perhaps as high as 100% for some of the smaller
properties.
QUALIFICATIONS OF GCA
GCA is an international advisory firm which provides technical and managerial advice
and counsel to the oil and gas industry worldwide. Founded in 1962, GCA focuses on an
integrated approach encompassing all aspects of the oil and gas business, including
management and strategy, economics, the geosciences, engineering and downstream
expertise.
GCA has extensive experience in oil and gas reserves and resource estimation and
property evaluation, and in the accepted protocols, standards and requirement for public
market reporting with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as well
as with a number of other international securities regulatory bodies. GCA has been involved
in a large number and very wide range of public market transactions in the capacity of
independent expert related to oil and gas reserves, assets and related issues. These have
included initial public offerings of securities, bond offerings, project financings, reserves
based lending as well as for merger, acquisition or dispute resolution purposes.
Sincerely,
GAFFNEY, CLINE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Csar Guzzetti
Southern Cone Regional Manager
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
SINGAPORE
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
KAZAKHSTAN
RUSSIA
UAE
Appendices
Appendix I
Economic Summary Projection

Total Field (Gross) - P50 Volumes
Franco
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
TOTAL
Oil
Gas
Oil Price
Production Production
Mbopd
MMscfd
US$
0
0
77,5
0
0
81,0
20
0
84,2
0
0
85,8
100
133
86,9
244
309
88,2
386
483
89,5
527
654
91,0
668
825
92,6
809
996
94,4
861
1.048
96,3
870
1.036
98,2
867
1.011
100,2
861
965
102,2
857
951
104,3
862
941
106,3
854
916
108,5
822
873
110,6
752
805
112,9
686
738
115,1
603
637
117,4
527
534
119,8
456
443
122,2
391
367
124,6
332
306
127,1
280
256
129,6
235
218
132,2
197
188
134,9
166
164
137,6
141
151
140,3
122
132
143,1
107
115
146,0
93
101
148,9
82
88
151,9
58
63
154,9
38
42
158,0
25
26
161,2
14
15
164,4
6
5
167,7
0
0
171,0
5.446
6.035
Valores que representam

o somatrio das
produes anuais
Gas Price
US$
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oil
Gas
Royalties PIS/COFINS
OPEX
CAPEX
Abandonment
Social
Income
Net
Revenues
Revenues
Costs
Tax
Tax
Cashflow
US$ millions US$ millions US$ millions US$ millions US$ millions US$ millions US$ millions US$ millions US$ millions US$ millions
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
-5
0
0
0
0
0
292
0
0
0
-292
567
0
57
0
57
92
0
34
95
232
0
0
0
0
21
0
0
0
0
-21
2.921
0
292
0
90
1.948
0
209
580
-197
7.221
0
722
0
228
4.054
0
520
1.446
251
11.632
0
1.163
0
391
4.767
0
827
2.296
2.188
16.125
0
1.612
0
568
5.078
0
1.135
3.152
4.581
20.789
0
2.079
0
765
5.618
0
1.449
4.026
6.853
25.678
0
2.568
0
963
5.506
0
1.782
4.951
9.908
27.888
0
2.789
0
1.081
3.195
0
1.918
5.327
13.579
28.756
0
2.876
0
1.138
1.164
0
1.971
5.474
16.134
29.215
0
2.921
0
1.191
950
0
1.990
5.529
16.634
29.584
0
2.958
0
1.229
484
0
2.007
5.575
17.330
30.038
0
3.004
0
1.285
988
0
2.029
5.636
17.097
30.826
0
3.083
0
1.349
1.260
0
2.097
5.825
17.213
31.158
0
3.116
0
1.400
771
0
2.141
5.948
17.781
30.564
0
3.056
0
1.444
524
0
2.117
5.881
17.540
28.519
0
2.852
0
1.482
267
0
1.985
5.513
16.421
26.542
0
2.654
0
1.520
273
0
1.856
5.157
15.082
23.812
0
2.381
0
1.550
0
0
1.665
4.624
13.593
21.216
0
2.122
0
1.581
0
0
1.462
4.060
11.992
18.748
0
1.875
0
1.613
0
0
1.267
3.520
10.473
16.394
0
1.639
0
1.645
0
0
1.077
2.991
9.042
14.202
0
1.420
0
1.659
0
111
907
2.519
7.696
12.215
0
1.222
0
1.654
0
227
759
2.108
6.473
0
347
626
1.740
5.423
10.465
0
1.046
0
1.629
8.949
0
895
0
1.583
0
472
512
1.423
4.536
7.681
0
768
0
1.513
0
602
418
1.160
3.821
6.634
0
663
0
1.420
0
736
343
953
3.254
5.895
0
589
0
1.322
0
751
291
808
2.884
5.244
0
524
0
1.220
0
766
246
683
2.570
4.671
0
467
0
1.113
0
782
208
577
2.306
4.166
0
417
0
980
0
930
166
460
2.145
3.042
0
304
0
757
0
813
105
292
1.584
2.045
0
204
0
571
0
553
64
179
1.026
1.340
0
134
0
401
0
423
34
95
675
768
0
77
0
249
0
288
14
39
390
324
0
32
0
115
0
147
3
7
-7.781
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
545.835
54.584
38.783
37.230
7.947
36.233
100.647
Net Present Value at 5%

6,49%
10%
15%
270.410
$118.033
$94.038
$56.832
$29.663

Libra
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
TOTAL
Oil
Gas
Oil Price
US$
Mbopd
MMscfd
0
0
77,5
0
0
81,0
20
0
84,2
0
0
85,8
100
133
86,9
244
309
88,2
386
483
89,5
527
655
91,0
668
826
92,6
809
997
94,4
950
1.168
96,3
1.088
1.310
98,2
1.226
1.450
100,2
1.277
1.454
102,2
1.282
1.438
104,3
1.270
1.433
106,3
1.263
1.429
108,5
1.242
1.369
110,6
1.191
1.271
112,9
1.108
1.167
115,1
1.024
1.072
117,4
922
957
119,8
806
819
122,2
699
692
124,6
601
580
127,1
512
485
129,6
434
404
132,2
365
338
134,9
307
289
137,6
258
280
140,3
217
235
143,1
183
201
146,0
154
172
148,9
131
148
151,9
109
114
154,9
83
86
158,0
62
62
161,2
32
36
164,4
20
22
167,7
12
14
171,0
7.877
8.723

o somatrio das
produes anuais
Gas Price
US$
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oil
Gas
Royalties
PIS/COFINS
OPEX
CAPEX
Abandonment
Social
Income
Net
Revenues Revenues
Costs
Tax
Tax
Cashflow
US$ millionUS$ millions US$ millions US$ millions US$ millions US$ millions US$ millions US$ millions US$ millions US$ millions
0
0
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
-13
0
0
0
0
0
292
0
0
0
-292
567
0
57
0
57
92
0
33
93
235
0
0
0
0
21
0
0
0
0
-21
2.921
0
292
0
90
1.948
0
209
580
-197
7.221
0
722
0
228
4.054
0
520
1.446
251
11.632
0
1.163
0
385
4.556
0
829
2.303
2.396
16.125
0
1.612
0
548
4.648
0
1.142
3.173
5.002
20.789
0
2.079
0
717
4.740
0
1.467
4.076
7.709
25.678
0
2.568
0
893
4.835
0
1.809
5.024
10.549
30.757
0
3.076
0
1.090
5.388
0
2.158
5.994
13.051
35.948
0
3.595
0
1.294
5.496
0
2.517
6.991
16.055
41.307
0
4.131
0
1.521
6.081
0
2.879
7.998
18.697
43.895
0
4.390
0
1.649
3.148
0
3.043
8.452
23.214
44.937
0
4.494
0
1.743
1.976
0
3.098
8.605
25.021
45.403
0
4.540
0
1.841
2.016
0
3.128
8.689
25.189
46.054
0
4.605
0
1.941
2.056
0
3.178
8.828
25.445
46.208
0
4.621
0
2.045
2.097
0
3.188
8.855
25.403
45.204
0
4.520
0
2.136
1.604
0
3.110
8.639
25.195
42.878
0
4.288
0
2.212
545
0
2.937
8.159
24.737
40.415
0
4.042
0
2.291
556
0
2.764
7.678
23.085
37.147
0
3.715
0
2.354
0
0
2.528
7.023
21.527
33.125
0
3.312
0
2.401
0
0
2.240
6.221
18.950
29.301
0
2.930
0
2.449
0
0
1.956
5.432
16.534
25.687
0
2.569
0
2.480
0
111
1.678
4.662
14.299
22.330
0
2.233
0
2.491
0
227
1.424
3.956
12.226
0
347
1.198
3.327
10.348
19.284
0
1.928
0
2.483
16.575
0
1.658
0
2.453
0
472
1.002
2.782
8.681
14.199
0
1.420
0
2.401
0
602
829
2.304
7.245
12.162
0
1.216
0
2.326
0
736
675
1.876
6.069
10.427
0
1.043
0
2.183
0
1.127
523
1.454
5.224
8.963
0
896
0
2.034
0
1.149
428
1.188
4.417
7.725
0
772
0
1.878
0
1.172
351
976
3.748
6.676
0
668
0
1.692
0
1.329
269
747
3.300
5.701
0
570
0
1.416
0
1.220
225
624
2.867
4.426
0
443
0
1.150
0
1.106
155
432
2.246
3.356
0
336
0
921
0
846
113
313
1.673
1.780
0
178
0
707
0
719
16
44
836
1.148
0
115
0
508
0
587
0
0
526
672
0
67
0
326
0
449
0
0
-11.919
808.623
80.862
57.367
56.130
12.198
53.619
148.943

6,49%
10%
15%
399.504
$165.118
$129.589
$75.785
$37.985

Entorno de Tup (1.74% of Tupi)

Oil
Gas
Mbopd
MMscfd
87
114
86
112
91
107
91
108
150
184
250
314
384
482
487
605
489
591
436
510
369
425
314
361
273
318
242
288
218
264
197
242
178
221
161
202
146
184
133
169
122
154
112
139
103
123
95
108
87
95
80
84
74
74
68
65
63
57
58
50
43
38
38
34
33
29
29
26
18
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
TOTAL
2.119
2.516

o somatrio das
produes anuais
Oil Price
Gas Price
US$
77,5
81,0
84,2
85,8
86,9
88,2
89,5
91,0
92,6
94,4
96,3
98,2
100,2
102,2
104,3
106,3
108,5
110,6
112,9
115,1
117,4
119,8
122,2
124,6
127,1
129,6
132,2
134,9
137,6
140,3
143,1
146,0
148,9
151,9
154,9
158,0
161,2
164,4
167,7
171,0
US$
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oil
Gas
Royalties
PIS/COFINS
OPEX
CAPEX
Abandonment
Social
Income
Net
Revenues
Revenues
Costs
Tax
Tax
Cashflow
2.274
0
227
0
78
1.550
0
168
466
-215
2.355
0
235
0
110
939
0
163
452
456
2.579
0
258
0
124
383
0
176
489
1.150
2.619
0
262
0
139
391
0
174
483
1.171
4.375
0
437
0
238
2.783
0
288
799
-170
7.414
0
741
0
398
4.621
0
484
1.345
-176
11.560
0
1.156
0
591
5.542
0
758
2.106
1.406
14.908
0
1.491
0
805
6.076
0
960
2.668
2.908
15.208
0
1.521
0
909
2.803
0
947
2.630
6.399
13.830
0
1.383
0
948
660
0
821
2.282
7.735
11.949
0
1.195
0
967
0
0
669
1.859
7.259
10.384
0
1.038
0
987
0
0
547
1.519
6.294
9.199
0
920
0
1.006
0
0
449
1.247
5.576
8.329
0
833
0
1.027
0
0
377
1.047
5.046
7.633
0
763
0
1.047
0
0
330
917
4.576
7.027
0
703
0
1.068
0
0
309
857
4.091
6.480
0
648
0
1.089
0
0
302
840
3.601
5.982
0
598
0
1.111
0
0
306
850
3.116
5.539
0
554
0
1.133
0
0
297
826
2.728
5.155
0
516
0
1.156
0
0
271
752
2.461
4.824
0
482
0
1.162
0
103
240
666
2.274
4.524
0
452
0
1.150
0
105
216
599
2.107
4.245
0
425
0
1.137
0
107
193
537
1.953
3.984
0
398
0
1.105
0
109
174
483
1.823
3.738
0
374
0
1.071
0
222
155
432
1.706
3.508
0
351
0
1.036
0
340
139
387
1.595
0
463
126
351
1.507
3.292
0
329
0
979
3.089
0
309
0
899
0
590
116
323
1.442
2.899
0
290
0
816
0
602
107
298
1.388
2.720
0
272
0
730
0
614
99
276
1.343
2.087
0
209
0
592
0
501
71
196
1.019
1.862
0
186
0
539
0
511
56
157
924
1.663
0
166
0
484
0
521
44
123
845
1.486
0
149
0
323
0
531
43
121
850
952
0
95
0
106
0
407
31
86
-5.091
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
199.672
19.967
27.062
25.746
5.725
10.608
Tupi Net Present Value at
29.466
81.098
5%
6,49%
10%
15%
$40.881
$33.960
$22.604
$13.481
Entorno de Tupi Net Present Value at 5%

6,49%
10%
15%
$711
$591
$393
$235

NE Tupi
Oil
Gas
Oil Price
US$
Mbopd
MMscfd
0
0
77,5
0
0
81,0
14
0
84,2
0
0
85,8
56
73
86,9
67
87
88,2
60
72
89,5
64
75
91,0
54
63
92,6
60
70
94,4
53
63
96,3
46
54
98,2
40
47
100,2
36
42
102,2
32
38
104,3
28
35
106,3
25
32
108,5
23
29
110,6
21
27
112,9
19
25
115,1
18
22
117,4
16
20
119,8
15
17
122,2
14
16
124,6
13
14
127,1
12
12
129,6
11
11
132,2
10
9
134,9
9
8
137,6
8
7
140,3
8
7
143,1
7
6
146,0
6
6
148,9
6
5
151,9
0
0
154,9
0
0
158,0
0
0
161,2
0
0
164,4
0
0
167,7
0
0
171,0
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
TOTAL
311
363

o somatrio das
produes anuais
Gas Price
US$
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oil
Gas
Royalties
PIS/COFINS
OPEX
CAPEX
Abandonment
Social
Income
Net
Revenues Revenues
Costs
Tax
Tax
Cashflow
0
0
0
0
0
143
0
0
0
-143
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
397
0
40
0
57
42
0
23
63
172
0
0
0
0
21
0
0
0
0
-21
1.636
0
164
0
100
1.852
0
106
295
-881
1.993
0
199
0
134
1.016
0
126
350
166
1.818
0
182
0
137
0
0
111
309
1.079
1.953
0
195
0
153
423
0
117
324
741
1.688
0
169
0
156
0
0
94
262
1.007
1.912
0
191
0
173
440
0
106
295
706
1.708
0
171
0
177
0
0
90
251
1.019
1.536
0
154
0
180
0
0
76
210
917
1.357
0
136
0
184
0
0
60
168
809
1.220
0
122
0
188
0
0
48
135
728
1.108
0
111
0
191
0
0
47
131
628
1.010
0
101
0
195
0
0
49
137
527
930
0
93
0
199
0
0
42
118
478
862
0
86
0
203
0
0
41
113
419
804
0
80
0
207
0
0
35
99
382
749
0
75
0
211
0
0
35
98
329
699
0
70
0
215
0
0
31
85
298
654
0
65
0
220
0
0
27
74
268
613
0
61
0
224
0
0
23
63
242
575
0
58
0
229
0
0
19
53
217
540
0
54
0
233
0
0
23
63
167
507
0
51
0
238
0
0
20
55
144
0
0
17
46
122
476
0
48
0
243
446
0
45
0
228
0
118
5
14
155
419
0
42
0
212
0
120
4
11
150
393
0
39
0
196
0
123
3
9
146
369
0
37
0
179
0
125
3
7
144
346
0
35
0
161
0
128
2
6
143
325
0
32
0
142
0
130
2
5
143
305
0
30
0
123
0
133
2
5
-732
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
29.347
2.935
5.710
3.916
877
1.387
3.853

6,49%
10%
15%
10.669
$5.412
$4.480
$2.931
$1.666

Peroba
Oil
Gas
Oil Price
US$
MMscfd
Mbopd
0
0
77,5
0
0
81,0
15
0
84,2
0
0
85,8
44
39
86,9
80
78
88,2
84
82
89,5
86
81
91,0
88
80
92,6
75
68
94,4
65
57
96,3
56
49
98,2
49
44
100,2
43
40
102,2
39
37
104,3
34
33
106,3
31
31
108,5
28
28
110,6
26
26
112,9
23
24
115,1
21
21
117,4
20
19
119,8
18
17
122,2
17
15
124,6
15
13
127,1
14
12
129,6
13
10
132,2
12
9
134,9
0
8
137,6
0
7
140,3
0
6
143,1
0
6
146,0
0
5
148,9
0
5
151,9
0
2
154,9
0
0
158,0
0
0
161,2
0
0
164,4
0
0
167,7
0
0
171,0
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
TOTAL
364
347

o somatrio das
produes anuais
Gas Price
US$
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oil
Gas
Royalties
PIS/COFINS
OPEX
CAPEX
Abandonment
Social
Income
Net
Revenues Revenues
Costs
Tax
Tax
Cashflow
0
0
0
0
18
0
0
0
0
-18
0
0
0
0
0
292
0
0
0
-292
425
0
42
0
57
85
0
22
60
159
0
0
0
0
21
0
0
0
0
-21
1.275
0
127
0
114
1.415
0
75
208
-664
2.381
0
238
0
247
2.256
0
141
392
-893
2.517
0
252
0
284
829
0
141
391
621
2.636
0
264
0
298
211
0
147
407
1.310
2.751
0
275
0
312
216
0
152
422
1.375
2.394
0
239
0
318
0
0
122
338
1.378
2.097
0
210
0
324
0
0
96
267
1.200
1.855
0
185
0
331
0
0
78
217
1.043
1.645
0
165
0
337
0
0
61
169
914
1.480
0
148
0
344
0
0
46
127
815
1.350
0
135
0
351
0
0
40
112
711
1.233
0
123
0
358
0
0
45
125
581
1.130
0
113
0
365
0
0
45
124
482
1.045
0
105
0
372
0
0
39
109
420
972
0
97
0
380
0
0
35
97
364
907
0
91
0
388
0
0
29
80
320
849
0
85
0
395
0
0
23
64
281
796
0
80
0
403
0
0
18
50
246
747
0
75
0
411
0
123
2
5
254
701
0
70
0
419
0
125
0
0
212
658
0
66
0
428
0
255
0
0
164
618
0
62
0
436
0
261
0
0
119
0
266
0
0
76
579
0
58
0
445
544
0
54
0
454
0
136
0
0
-1.130
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33.587
3.359
8.611
5.304
1.165
1.356
3.765

6,49%
10%
15%
10.027
$5.295
$4.395
$2.852
$1.554

Entorno de Iara (37.6% of Iara)

Oil
Gas
Oil Price
Mbopd
MMscfd
US$
0
0
77,5
0
0
81,0
10
0
84,2
0
0
85,8
70
80
86,9
131
150
88,2
231
266
89,5
317
363
91,0
370
421
92,6
369
414
94,4
367
406
96,3
347
378
98,2
323
347
100,2
287
303
102,2
257
269
104,3
233
242
106,3
213
222
108,5
196
206
110,6
181
192
112,9
167
180
115,1
155
169
117,4
143
159
119,8
133
148
122,2
123
139
124,6
114
130
127,1
106
121
129,6
98
112
132,2
90
104
134,9
83
96
137,6
77
88
140,3
70
80
143,1
63
73
146,0
57
66
148,9
52
60
151,9
36
41
154,9
22
25
158,0
9
10
161,2
0
0
164,4
0
0
167,7
0
0
171,0
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
TOTAL
2.008
2.212

o somatrio das
produes anuais
Gas Price
US$
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oil
Gas
Royalties
PIS/COFINS
OPEX
CAPEX
Abandonment
Social
Income
Net
Revenues
Revenues
Costs
Tax
Tax
Cashflow
0
0
0
0
6
143
0
0
0
-149
0
0
0
0
0
146
0
0
0
-146
283
0
28
0
57
85
0
10
28
75
0
0
0
0
21
0
0
0
0
-21
2.045
0
204
0
96
2.187
0
134
371
-946
3.879
0
388
0
219
3.856
0
247
686
-1.517
6.967
0
697
0
386
5.591
0
436
1.212
-1.356
9.690
0
969
0
570
6.125
0
589
1.636
-200
11.531
0
1.153
0
698
4.959
0
679
1.887
2.155
11.702
0
1.170
0
799
3.739
0
646
1.796
3.552
11.889
0
1.189
0
873
2.468
0
630
1.749
4.980
11.477
0
1.148
0
923
1.373
0
576
1.600
5.858
10.891
0
1.089
0
963
934
0
512
1.422
5.971
9.847
0
985
0
983
0
0
420
1.167
6.293
9.011
0
901
0
1.002
0
0
356
988
5.764
8.327
0
833
0
1.022
0
0
322
894
5.256
7.770
0
777
0
1.043
0
0
317
882
4.751
7.291
0
729
0
1.064
0
0
326
905
4.268
6.866
0
687
0
1.085
0
0
340
945
3.809
6.472
0
647
0
1.107
0
0
345
959
3.415
6.112
0
611
0
1.129
0
0
339
943
3.089
5.778
0
578
0
1.151
0
0
324
901
2.824
5.466
0
547
0
1.174
0
0
306
851
2.588
5.169
0
517
0
1.184
0
109
271
753
2.444
4.888
0
489
0
1.180
0
222
246
683
2.290
4.617
0
462
0
1.161
0
340
223
618
2.153
0
463
201
559
2.031
4.354
0
435
0
1.127
4.099
0
410
0
1.090
0
472
191
532
1.876
3.855
0
385
0
1.052
0
481
174
484
1.759
3.622
0
362
0
1.012
0
491
158
439
1.650
3.350
0
335
0
970
0
501
139
386
1.520
3.098
0
310
0
925
0
511
122
338
1.404
2.866
0
287
0
879
0
521
106
295
1.300
2.652
0
265
0
830
0
531
92
256
1.208
1.850
0
185
0
605
0
407
59
163
838
1.159
0
116
0
389
0
276
34
95
526
489
0
49
0
181
0
141
11
30
-5.247
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
199.362
19.936
28.955
31.604
5.467
9.883
27.452
76.064
Iara Net Present Value at 5%

6,49%
10%
15%
$31.997
$25.112
$14.522
$6.933
Entorno de Iara Net Present Value at 5%

6,49%
10%
15%
$12.031
$9.442
$5.460
$2.607

Florim
Oil
Gas
Oil Price
Mbopd
MMscfd
US$
0
0
77,5
0
0
81,0
0
0
84,2
0
0
85,8
20
23
86,9
18
20
88,2
15
18
89,5
13
15
91,0
11
12
92,6
9
10
94,4
9
9
96,3
8
8
98,2
7
7
100,2
7
7
102,2
6
7
104,3
6
6
106,3
5
6
108,5
5
5
110,6
5
5
112,9
4
5
115,1
4
4
117,4
4
4
119,8
3
4
122,2
3
4
124,6
3
3
127,1
3
3
129,6
2
3
132,2
2
3
134,9
2
2
137,6
2
2
140,3
2
2
143,1
0
2
146,0
0
2
148,9
0
2
151,9
0
0
154,9
0
0
158,0
0
0
161,2
0
0
164,4
0
0
167,7
0
0
171,0
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
TOTAL
65
74

o somatrio das
produes anuais
Gas Price
US$
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oil
Gas
Royalties
PIS/COFINS
OPEX
CAPEX
Abandonment
Social
Income
Net
Revenues Revenues
Costs
Tax
Tax
Cashflow
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
146
0
0
0
-146
0
0
0
0
0
99
0
0
0
-99
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
584
0
58
0
43
795
0
28
78
-419
522
0
52
0
44
0
0
29
80
317
458
0
46
0
45
0
0
23
65
279
401
0
40
0
46
0
0
18
51
245
346
0
35
0
47
0
0
14
38
213
300
0
30
0
48
0
0
10
27
186
279
0
28
0
49
0
0
8
21
173
259
0
26
0
50
0
0
7
20
156
243
0
24
0
51
0
0
7
19
142
233
0
23
0
52
0
0
6
16
136
221
0
22
0
53
0
0
13
36
97
207
0
21
0
54
0
0
12
33
88
194
0
19
0
55
0
0
11
30
80
183
0
18
0
56
0
0
10
27
72
173
0
17
0
57
0
0
9
24
66
164
0
16
0
58
0
0
8
22
60
156
0
16
0
59
0
0
7
20
54
148
0
15
0
61
0
0
6
18
48
140
0
14
0
62
0
0
6
16
43
132
0
13
0
63
0
0
5
13
37
123
0
12
0
64
0
0
4
12
31
116
0
12
0
66
0
0
3
10
25
0
0
3
8
20
109
0
11
0
67
102
0
10
0
68
0
0
2
6
16
96
0
10
0
70
0
0
1
4
11
90
0
9
0
71
0
0
1
2
6
84
0
8
0
72
0
0
0
1
-261
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
130
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
133
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6.063
606
1.530
1.040
263
251
696

6,49%
10%
15%
1.676
$872
$713
$438
$204

Entorno de Jupiter (30% of Jupiter)

Oil
Gas
Mbopd
MMscfd
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
48
37
104
78
168
119
208
141
200
126
180
108
165
100
152
95
142
90
132
86
124
82
118
79
112
76
106
73
101
70
96
67
91
64
86
60
81
57
76
53
71
49
66
45
61
41
56
37
52
33
48
30
45
28
42
27
40
25
38
24
26
16
16
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
TOTAL
1.117
740

o somatrio das
produes anuais
Oil Price
Gas Price
US$
77,5
81,0
84,2
85,8
86,9
88,2
89,5
91,0
92,6
94,4
96,3
98,2
100,2
102,2
104,3
106,3
108,5
110,6
112,9
115,1
117,4
119,8
122,2
124,6
127,1
129,6
132,2
134,9
137,6
140,3
143,1
146,0
148,9
151,9
154,9
158,0
161,2
164,4
167,7
171,0
US$
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OPEX
CAPEX
Abandonment
Social
Income
Net
Oil
Gas
Royalties
PIS/COFINS
Revenues
Revenues
Costs
Tax
Tax
Cashflow
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
-5
0
0
-146
0
0
0
0
0
146
0
215
0
22
0
57
42
0
9
24
61
0
0
0
0
21
0
0
0
0
-21
1.331
0
133
0
98
2.160
0
79
220
-1.359
2.933
0
293
0
236
3.828
0
171
475
-2.070
4.800
0
480
0
420
5.355
0
262
727
-2.445
6.057
0
606
0
538
3.805
0
317
881
-89
5.900
0
590
0
604
1.940
0
278
774
1.714
5.424
0
542
0
622
220
0
233
648
3.158
5.070
0
507
0
635
0
0
201
557
3.171
4.779
0
478
0
647
0
0
174
484
2.994
4.533
0
453
0
660
0
0
151
419
2.850
4.318
0
432
0
674
0
0
129
358
2.726
4.141
0
414
0
687
0
0
121
336
2.582
4.000
0
400
0
701
0
0
134
373
2.392
3.874
0
387
0
715
0
0
166
461
2.145
3.754
0
375
0
729
0
0
195
541
1.913
3.637
0
364
0
744
0
0
205
568
1.757
3.524
0
352
0
759
0
0
196
545
1.673
3.409
0
341
0
774
0
0
185
514
1.596
3.290
0
329
0
789
0
0
173
482
1.516
3.160
0
316
0
789
0
107
153
425
1.477
3.019
0
302
0
788
0
109
141
392
1.397
2.874
0
287
0
770
0
222
128
355
1.333
2.723
0
272
0
733
0
340
116
322
1.279
0
347
115
318
1.188
2.573
0
257
0
695
2.423
0
242
0
655
0
354
105
293
1.127
2.275
0
228
0
613
0
361
97
268
1.070
2.135
0
214
0
569
0
368
89
246
1.018
2.051
0
205
0
523
0
376
85
237
1.001
1.974
0
197
0
475
0
383
83
230
989
1.904
0
190
0
425
0
391
81
225
983
1.840
0
184
0
372
0
399
80
221
983
1.269
0
127
0
232
0
271
57
160
693
830
0
83
0
108
0
138
45
125
-3.697
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
106.040
10.604
18.859
17.497
4.166
4.754
13.206
36.953
Jupiter Net Present Value at 5%

6,49%
10%
15%
$14.496
$11.076
$5.912
$2.349
Entorno de Jupiter Net Present Value at 5%

6,49%
10%
15%
$4.349
$3.323
$1.774
$705

Pau Brasil
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
TOTAL
Oil
Gas
Oil Price
US$
Mbopd
MMscfd
0
0
77,5
0
0
81,0
10
0
84,2
0
0
85,8
48
37
86,9
50
36
88,2
44
26
89,5
39
23
91,0
36
22
92,6
34
21
94,4
31
20
96,3
29
19
98,2
27
18
100,2
26
17
102,2
24
17
104,3
23
16
106,3
22
15
108,5
21
15
110,6
20
14
112,9
19
13
115,1
18
13
117,4
17
12
119,8
16
11
122,2
15
10
124,6
14
9
127,1
12
8
129,6
11
7
132,2
11
7
134,9
10
6
137,6
9
5
140,3
8
5
143,1
8
5
146,0
7
4
148,9
6
4
151,9
0
0
154,9
0
0
158,0
0
0
161,2
0
0
164,4
0
0
167,7
0
0
171,0
242
158

o somatrio das
produes anuais
Gas Price
US$
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oil
Gas
Royalties
PIS/COFINS
OPEX
CAPEX
Abandonment
Social
Income
Net
Revenues Revenues
Costs
Tax
Tax
Cashflow
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
-10
0
0
0
0
0
292
0
0
0
-292
269
0
27
0
57
85
0
10
27
64
0
0
0
0
21
0
0
0
0
-21
1.331
0
133
0
89
1.911
0
78
216
-1.095
1.401
0
140
0
134
1.422
0
72
199
-566
1.256
0
126
0
136
0
0
59
164
771
1.145
0
115
0
139
0
0
49
137
706
1.070
0
107
0
142
0
0
42
117
661
1.013
0
101
0
145
0
0
37
102
628
962
0
96
0
147
0
0
32
88
598
902
0
90
0
150
0
0
29
81
551
870
0
87
0
153
0
0
27
74
529
841
0
84
0
157
0
0
23
65
512
815
0
81
0
160
0
0
31
87
455
790
0
79
0
163
0
0
44
123
381
765
0
77
0
166
0
0
42
116
365
741
0
74
0
169
0
0
39
110
349
718
0
72
0
173
0
0
37
103
333
696
0
70
0
176
0
0
35
97
318
669
0
67
0
180
0
0
32
90
300
641
0
64
0
183
0
0
30
82
282
609
0
61
0
187
0
0
27
74
261
578
0
58
0
191
0
0
24
66
240
548
0
55
0
195
0
0
27
75
197
515
0
52
0
199
0
0
24
66
175
0
0
21
58
154
483
0
48
0
202
454
0
45
0
188
0
118
9
26
186
426
0
43
0
172
0
120
8
23
180
399
0
40
0
156
0
123
7
20
176
375
0
37
0
139
0
125
7
18
173
352
0
35
0
122
0
128
6
17
172
330
0
33
0
104
0
130
6
16
172
310
0
31
0
85
0
133
6
15
-704
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22.275
2.228
4.790
3.710
877
919
2.552

6,49%
10%
15%
7.200
$3.084
$2.408
$1.337
$538

Guara Sul
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
TOTAL
Oil
Gas
Oil Price Gas Price
Oil
Gas
Royalties PIS/COFINS
OPEX
CAPEX Abandonment
Social
Income
Net
Revenues Revenues
Costs
Tax
Tax
Cashflow
MMscfd
US$
US$
Mbopd
0
0
77,5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
81,0
0
0
0
0
0
0
146
0
0
0
-146
0
0
84,2
0
0
0
0
0
0
104
0
0
0
-104
0
0
85,8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
14
86,9
0
467
0
47
0
32
279
0
24
67
17
16
14
88,2
0
464
0
46
0
33
0
0
30
82
272
15
14
89,5
0
457
0
46
0
34
0
0
29
80
268
15
13
91,0
0
450
0
45
0
34
0
0
28
79
264
14
13
92,6
0
435
0
44
0
35
0
0
27
75
255
13
12
94,4
0
417
0
42
0
36
0
0
25
70
244
12
11
96,3
0
396
0
40
0
37
0
0
23
65
232
11
10
98,2
0
367
0
37
0
37
0
0
22
62
209
10
9
100,2
0
322
0
32
0
38
0
0
20
55
177
8
7
102,2
0
276
0
28
0
39
0
0
16
44
149
7
6
104,3
0
231
0
23
0
40
0
0
15
42
111
5
5
106,3
0
193
0
19
0
40
0
0
12
33
88
4
4
108,5
0
158
0
16
0
41
0
0
9
25
67
3
3
110,6
0
129
0
13
0
42
0
0
7
18
49
3
2
112,9
0
105
0
10
0
43
0
0
5
13
34
2
2
115,1
0
87
0
9
0
44
0
0
3
8
23
2
2
117,4
0
73
0
7
0
45
0
0
2
5
14
2
1
119,8
0
61
0
6
0
45
0
0
1
2
7
1
1
122,2
0
53
0
5
0
46
0
133
0
0
-131
0
1
124,6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
127,1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
129,6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
132,2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
134,9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
137,6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
140,3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
143,1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
146,0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
148,9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
151,9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
154,9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
158,0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
161,2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
164,4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
167,7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
171,0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
58
55

o somatrio das
produes anuais
5.143
514
742
530
133
298
826

6,49%
10%
15%
2.100
$1.229
$1.052
$732
$439
Appendix II
Society of Petroleum Engineers, World Petroleum Council, American Association of Petroleum

Geologists and Society of Petroleum Evaluation Engineers
Petroleum Resources Management System
1
Definitions and Guidelines ( )
March 2007
Preamble
Petroleum resources are the estimated quantities of hydrocarbons naturally occurring on or within the Earths crust.
Resource assessments estimate total quantities in known and yet-to-be-discovered accumulations; resources
evaluations are focused on those quantities that can potentially be recovered and marketed by commercial projects.
A petroleum resources management system provides a consistent approach to estimating petroleum quantities,
evaluating development projects, and presenting results within a comprehensive classification framework.
International efforts to standardize the definition of petroleum resources and how they are estimated began in the
1930s. Early guidance focused on Proved Reserves. Building on work initiated by the Society of Petroleum
Evaluation Engineers (SPEE), SPE published definitions for all Reserves categories in 1987. In the same year, the
World Petroleum Council (WPC, then known as the World Petroleum Congress), working independently, published
Reserves definitions that were strikingly similar. In 1997, the two organizations jointly released a single set of
definitions for Reserves that could be used worldwide. In 2000, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists
(AAPG), SPE and WPC jointly developed a classification system for all petroleum resources. This was followed by
additional supporting documents: supplemental application evaluation guidelines (2001) and a glossary of terms
utilized in Resources definitions (2005). SPE also published standards for estimating and auditing reserves
information (revised 2007).
These definitions and the related classification system are now in common use internationally within the petroleum
industry. They provide a measure of comparability and reduce the subjective nature of resources estimation.
However, the technologies employed in petroleum exploration, development, production and processing continue to
evolve and improve. The SPE Oil and Gas Reserves Committee works closely with other organizations to maintain
the definitions and issues periodic revisions to keep current with evolving technologies and changing commercial
opportunities.
The SPE PRMS document consolidates, builds on, and replaces guidance previously contained in the 1997
Petroleum Reserves Definitions, the 2000 Petroleum Resources Classification and Definitions publications, and the
2001 Guidelines for the Evaluation of Petroleum Reserves and Resources; the latter document remains a valuable
source of more detailed background information.,
These definitions and guidelines are designed to provide a common reference for the international petroleum
industry, including national reporting and regulatory disclosure agencies, and to support petroleum project and
portfolio management requirements. They are intended to improve clarity in global communications regarding
petroleum resources. It is expected that SPE PRMS will be supplemented with industry education programs and
application guides addressing their implementation in a wide spectrum of technical and/or commercial settings.
It is understood that these definitions and guidelines allow flexibility for users and agencies to tailor application for
their particular needs; however, any modifications to the guidance contained herein should be clearly identified. The
definitions and guidelines contained in this document must not be construed as modifying the interpretation or
application of any existing regulatory reporting requirements.
The full text of the SPE PRMS Definitions and Guidelines can be viewed at:
www.spe.org/specma/binary/files/6859916Petroleum_Resources_Management_System_2007.pdf
These Definitions and Guidelines are extracted from the Society of Petroleum Engineers / World Petroleum Council / American
Association of Petroleum Geologists / Society of Petroleum Evaluation Engineers (SPE/WPC/AAPG/SPEE) Petroleum
Resources Management System document (SPE PRMS), approved in March 2007.

RESERVES
Reserves are those quantities of petroleum anticipated to be commercially recoverable by application of
development projects to known accumulations from a given date forward under defined conditions.
Reserves must satisfy four criteria: they must be discovered, recoverable, commercial, and remaining based on the
development project(s) applied. Reserves are further subdivided in accordance with the level of certainty associated with
the estimates and may be sub-classified based on project maturity and/or characterized by their development and
production status. To be included in the Reserves class, a project must be sufficiently defined to establish its commercial
viability. There must be a reasonable expectation that all required internal and external approvals will be forthcoming, and
there is evidence of firm intention to proceed with development within a reasonable time frame. A reasonable time frame
for the initiation of development depends on the specific circumstances and varies according to the scope of the project.
While 5 years is recommended as a benchmark, a longer time frame could be applied where, for example, development of
economic projects are deferred at the option of the producer for, among other things, market-related reasons, or to meet
contractual or strategic objectives. In all cases, the justification for classification as Reserves should be clearly documented.
To be included in the Reserves class, there must be a high confidence in the commercial producibility of the reservoir as
supported by actual production or formation tests. In certain cases, Reserves may be assigned on the basis of well logs
and/or core analysis that indicate that the subject reservoir is hydrocarbon-bearing and is analogous to reservoirs in the
same area that are producing or have demonstrated the ability to produce on formation tests.
On Production
The development project is currently producing and selling petroleum to market.
The key criterion is that the project is receiving income from sales, rather than the approved development project
necessarily being complete. This is the point at which the project chance of commerciality can be said to be 100%.
The project decision gate is the decision to initiate commercial production from the project.
Approved for Development
A discovered accumulation where project activities are ongoing to justify commercial development in the foreseeable
future.
At this point, it must be certain that the development project is going ahead. The project must not be subject to any
contingencies such as outstanding regulatory approvals or sales contracts. Forecast capital expenditures should
be included in the reporting entitys current or following years approved budget. The project decision gate is the
decision to start investing capital in the construction of production facilities and/or drilling development wells.
Justified for Development
Implementation of the development project is justified on the basis of reasonable forecast commercial conditions at
the time of reporting, and there are reasonable expectations that all necessary approvals/contracts will be obtained.
In order to move to this level of project maturity, and hence have reserves associated with it, the development project
must be commercially viable at the time of reporting, based on the reporting entitys assumptions of future prices,
costs, etc. (forecast case) and the specific circumstances of the project. Evidence of a firm intention to proceed with
development within a reasonable time frame will be sufficient to demonstrate commerciality. There should be a
development plan in sufficient detail to support the assessment of commerciality and a reasonable expectation that
any regulatory approvals or sales contracts required prior to project implementation will be forthcoming. Other than
such approvals/contracts, there should be no known contingencies that could preclude the development from
proceeding within a reasonable timeframe (see Reserves class). The project decision gate is the decision by the
reporting entity and its partners, if any, that the project has reached a level of technical and commercial maturity
sufficient to justify proceeding with development at that point in time.

Proved Reserves
Proved Reserves are those quantities of petroleum, which by analysis of geoscience and engineering data, can be
estimated with reasonable certainty to be commercially recoverable, from a given date forward, from known
reservoirs and under defined economic conditions, operating methods, and government regulations.
If deterministic methods are used, the term reasonable certainty is intended to express a high degree of
confidence that the quantities will be recovered. If probabilistic methods are used, there should be at least a 90%
probability that the quantities actually recovered will equal or exceed the estimate. The area of the reservoir
considered as Proved includes:
(1)
the area delineated by drilling and defined by fluid contacts, if any, and
(2)
adjacent undrilled portions of the reservoir that can reasonably be judged as continuous with it and
commercially productive on the basis of available geoscience and engineering data.
In the absence of data on fluid contacts, Proved quantities in a reservoir are limited by the lowest known
hydrocarbon (LKH) as seen in a well penetration unless otherwise indicated by definitive geoscience, engineering,
or performance data. Such definitive information may include pressure gradient analysis and seismic indicators.
Seismic data alone may not be sufficient to define fluid contacts for Proved reserves (see 2001 Supplemental
Guidelines, Chapter 8). Reserves in undeveloped locations may be classified as Proved provided that the
locations are in undrilled areas of the reservoir that can be judged with reasonable certainty to be commercially
productive. Interpretations of available geoscience and engineering data indicate with reasonable certainty that the
objective formation is laterally continuous with drilled Proved locations. For Proved Reserves, the recovery
efficiency applied to these reservoirs should be defined based on a range of possibilities supported by analogs and
sound engineering judgment considering the characteristics of the Proved area and the applied development
program.
Probable Reserves
Probable Reserves are those additional Reserves which analysis of geoscience and engineering data indicate are
less likely to be recovered than Proved Reserves but more certain to be recovered than Possible Reserves.
It is equally likely that actual remaining quantities recovered will be greater than or less than the sum of the
estimated Proved plus Probable Reserves (2P). In this context, when probabilistic methods are used, there should
be at least a 50% probability that the actual quantities recovered will equal or exceed the 2P estimate. Probable
Reserves may be assigned to areas of a reservoir adjacent to Proved where data control or interpretations of
available data are less certain. The interpreted reservoir continuity may not meet the reasonable certainty criteria.
Probable estimates also include incremental recoveries associated with project recovery efficiencies beyond that
assumed for Proved.
Possible Reserves
Possible Reserves are those additional reserves which analysis of geoscience and engineering data indicate are
less likely to be recoverable than Probable Reserves
The total quantities ultimately recovered from the project have a low probability to exceed the sum of Proved plus
Probable plus Possible (3P), which is equivalent to the high estimate scenario. When probabilistic methods are
used, there should be at least a 10% probability that the actual quantities recovered will equal or exceed the 3P
estimate. Possible Reserves may be assigned to areas of a reservoir adjacent to Probable where data control and
interpretations of available data are progressively less certain. Frequently, this may be in areas where geoscience
and engineering data are unable to clearly define the area and vertical reservoir limits of commercial production
from the reservoir by a defined project. Possible estimates also include incremental quantities associated with
project recovery efficiencies beyond that assumed for Probable.
Probable and Possible Reserves
(See above for separate criteria for Probable Reserves and Possible Reserves.)
The 2P and 3P estimates may be based on reasonable alternative technical and commercial interpretations within
the reservoir and/or subject project that are clearly documented, including comparisons to results in successful
similar projects. In conventional accumulations, Probable and/or Possible Reserves may be assigned where
geoscience and engineering data identify directly adjacent portions of a reservoir within the same accumulation
that may be separated from Proved areas by minor faulting or other geological discontinuities and have not been
penetrated by a wellbore but are interpreted to be in communication with the known (Proved) reservoir. Probable
or Possible Reserves may be assigned to areas that are structurally higher than the Proved area. Possible (and in

some cases, Probable) Reserves may be assigned to areas that are structurally lower than the adjacent Proved or
2P area. Caution should be exercised in assigning Reserves to adjacent reservoirs isolated by major, potentially
sealing, faults until this reservoir is penetrated and evaluated as commercially productive. Justification for
assigning Reserves in such cases should be clearly documented. Reserves should not be assigned to areas that
are clearly separated from a known accumulation by non-productive reservoir (i.e., absence of reservoir,
structurally low reservoir, or negative test results); such areas may contain Prospective Resources. In conventional
accumulations, where drilling has defined a highest known oil (HKO) elevation and there exists the potential for an
associated gas cap, Proved oil Reserves should only be assigned in the structurally higher portions of the reservoir
if there is reasonable certainty that such portions are initially above bubble point pressure based on documented
engineering analyses. Reservoir portions that do not meet this certainty may be assigned as Probable and
Possible oil and/or gas based on reservoir fluid properties and pressure gradient interpretations.
Developed Reserves
Developed Reserves are expected quantities to be recovered from existing wells and facilities.
Reserves are considered developed only after the necessary equipment has been installed, or when the
costs to do so are relatively minor compared to the cost of a well. Where required facilities become
unavailable, it may be necessary to reclassify Developed Reserves as Undeveloped. Developed
Reserves may be further sub-classified as Producing or Non-Producing.
Developed Producing Reserves
Developed Producing Reserves are expected to be recovered from completion intervals that
are open and producing at the time of the estimate.
Improved recovery reserves are considered producing only after the improved recovery
project is in operation.
Developed Non-Producing Reserves
Developed Non-Producing Reserves include shut-in and behind-pipe Reserves
Shut-in Reserves are expected to be recovered from:
(1)
completion intervals which are open at the time of the estimate but which have not yet
started producing,
(2)
wells which were shut-in for market conditions or pipeline connections, or
(3)
wells not capable of production for mechanical reasons.
Behind-pipe Reserves are expected to be recovered from zones in existing wells which will
require additional completion work or future re-completion prior to start of production. In all
cases, production can be initiated or restored with relatively low expenditure compared to the
cost of drilling a new well.
Undeveloped Reserves
Undeveloped Reserves are quantities expected to be recovered through future investments:
(1)
from new wells on undrilled acreage in known accumulations,
(2)
from deepening existing wells to a different (but known) reservoir,
(3)
from infill wells that will increase recovery, or
(4)
where a relatively large expenditure (e.g. when compared to the cost of drilling a new well) is
required to
(a)
recomplete an existing well or
(b)
install production or transportation facilities for primary or improved recovery

projects.

CONTINGENT RESOURCES
Those quantities of petroleum estimated, as of a given date, to be potentially recoverable from known
accumulations by application of development projects, but which are not currently considered to be commercially
recoverable due to one or more contingencies.
Contingent Resources may include, for example, projects for which there are currently no viable markets, or where
commercial recovery is dependent on technology under development, or where evaluation of the accumulation is
insufficient to clearly assess commerciality. Contingent Resources are further categorized in accordance with the
level of certainty associated with the estimates and may be sub-classified based on project maturity and/or
characterized by their economic status.
Development Pending
A discovered accumulation where project activities are ongoing to justify commercial development in the
foreseeable future.
The project is seen to have reasonable potential for eventual commercial development, to the extent that further
data acquisition (e.g. drilling, seismic data) and/or evaluations are currently ongoing with a view to confirming that
the project is commercially viable and providing the basis for selection of an appropriate development plan. The
critical contingencies have been identified and are reasonably expected to be resolved within a reasonable time
frame. Note that disappointing appraisal/evaluation results could lead to a re-classification of the project to On
Hold or Not Viable status. The project decision gate is the decision to undertake further data acquisition
and/or studies designed to move the project to a level of technical and commercial maturity at which a decision
can be made to proceed with development and production.
Development Unclarified or on Hold
A discovered accumulation where project activities are on hold and/or where justification as a commercial
development may be subject to significant delay.
The project is seen to have potential for eventual commercial development, but further appraisal/evaluation
activities are on hold pending the removal of significant contingencies external to the project, or substantial further
appraisal/evaluation activities are required to clarify the potential for eventual commercial development.
Development may be subject to a significant time delay. Note that a change in circumstances, such that there is
no longer a reasonable expectation that a critical contingency can be removed in the foreseeable future, for
example, could lead to a reclassification of the project to Not Viable status. The project decision gate is the
decision to either proceed with additional evaluation designed to clarify the potential for eventual commercial
development or to temporarily suspend or delay further activities pending resolution of external contingencies.
Development Not Viable
A discovered accumulation for which there are no current plans to develop or to acquire additional data at the time
due to limited production potential.
The project is not seen to have potential for eventual commercial development at the time of reporting, but the
theoretically recoverable quantities are recorded so that the potential opportunity will be recognized in the event of
a major change in technology or commercial conditions. The project decision gate is the decision not to
undertake any further data acquisition or studies on the project for the foreseeable future.
PROSPECTIVE RESOURCES
Those quantities of petroleum which are estimated, as of a given date, to be potentially recoverable from
undiscovered accumulations.
Potential accumulations are evaluated according to their chance of discovery and, assuming a discovery, the estimated
quantities that would be recoverable under defined development projects. It is recognized that the development programs
will be of significantly less detail and depend more heavily on analog developments in the earlier phases of exploration.
Prospect
A project associated with a potential accumulation that is sufficiently well defined to represent a viable drilling
target.
Project activities are focused on assessing the chance of discovery and, assuming discovery, the range of
potential recoverable quantities under a commercial development program.
Lead
A project associated with a potential accumulation that is currently poorly defined and requires more data
acquisition and/or evaluation in order to be classified as a prospect.
Project activities are focused on acquiring additional data and/or undertaking further evaluation designed to
confirm whether or not the lead can be matured into a prospect. Such evaluation includes the assessment of the
chance of discovery and, assuming discovery, the range of potential recovery under feasible development
scenarios.
Play
A project associated with a prospective trend of potential prospects, but which requires more data acquisition
and/or evaluation in order to define specific leads or prospects.
Project activities are focused on acquiring additional data and/or undertaking further evaluation designed to define
specific leads or prospects for more detailed analysis of their chance of discovery and, assuming discovery, the
range of potential recovery under hypothetical development scenarios.
RESOURCES CLASSIFICATION
PROJECT MATURITY
Appendix III
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (SEC)

MODERNIZATION OF OIL AND GAS REPORTING 1
Oil and Gas Reserves Definitions and Reporting
(a)
Definitions
Acquisition of properties. Costs incurred to purchase, lease or otherwise acquire a

(1)
property, including costs of lease bonuses and options to purchase or lease properties, the
portion of costs applicable to minerals when land including mineral rights is purchased in fee,
brokers' fees, recording fees, legal costs, and other costs incurred in acquiring properties.
(2)
Analogous reservoir. Analogous reservoirs, as used in resources assessments, have
similar rock and fluid properties, reservoir conditions (depth, temperature, and pressure) and
drive mechanisms, but are typically at a more advanced stage of development than the reservoir
of interest and thus may provide concepts to assist in the interpretation of more limited data and
estimation of recovery. When used to support proved reserves, an analogous reservoir refers
to a reservoir that shares the following characteristics with the reservoir of interest:
(i)
Same geological formation (but not necessarily in pressure communication with the
reservoir of interest);
(ii)
Same environment of deposition;
(iii)
Similar geological structure; and
(iv)
Same drive mechanism.
Instruction to paragraph (a)(2): Reservoir properties must, in the aggregate, be no more

favorable in the analog than in the reservoir of interest.
(3)
Bitumen. Bitumen, sometimes referred to as natural bitumen, is petroleum in a solid or
semi-solid state in natural deposits with a viscosity greater than 10,000 centipoise measured at
original temperature in the deposit and atmospheric pressure, on a gas free basis. In its natural
state it usually contains sulfur, metals, and other non-hydrocarbons.
(4)
Condensate. Condensate is a mixture of hydrocarbons that exists in the gaseous phase
at original reservoir temperature and pressure, but that, when produced, is in the liquid phase at
surface pressure and temperature.
(5)
Deterministic estimate. The method of estimating reserves or resources is called deterministic
when a single value for each parameter (from the geoscience, engineering, or economic data) in the
reserves calculation is used in the reserves estimation procedure.
(6)
Developed oil and gas reserves. Developed oil and gas reserves are reserves of any
category that can be expected to be recovered:
(i) Through existing wells with existing equipment and operating methods or in which the
cost of the required equipment is relatively minor compared to the cost of a new well;
and
Extracted from 17 CFR Parts 210, 211, 229, and 249 [Release Nos. 33-8995; 34-59192; FR-78; File No. S7-15-08]
RIN 3235-AK00.
(ii) Through installed extraction equipment and infrastructure operational at the time of
the reserves estimate if the extraction is by means not involving a well.
(7)
Development costs. Costs incurred to obtain access to proved reserves and to
provide facilities for extracting, treating, gathering and storing the oil and gas. More specifically,
development costs, including depreciation and applicable operating costs of support
equipment and facilities and other costs of development activities, are costs incurred to:
(i)
Gain access to and prepare well locations for drilling, including surveying well
locations for the purpose of determining specific development drilling sites, clearing
ground, draining, road building, and relocating public roads, gas lines, and power
lines, to the extent necessary in developing the proved reserves.
(ii)
Drill and equip development wells, development-type stratigraphic test wells, and
service wells, including the costs of platforms and of well equipment such as casing,
tubing, pumping equipment, and the wellhead assembly.
(iii)
Acquire, construct, and install production facilities such as lease flow lines,
separators, treaters, heaters, manifolds, measuring devices, and production
storage tanks, natural gas cycling and processing plants, and central utility and
waste disposal systems.
(iv)
Provide improved recovery systems.
(8)
Development project. A development project is the means by which petroleum
resources are brought to the status of economically producible. As examples, the development
of a single reservoir or field, an incremental development in a producing field, or the integrated
development of a group of several fields and associated facilities with a common ownership may
constitute a development project.
(9)
Development well. A well drilled within the proved area of an oil or gas reservoir to the
depth of a stratigraphic horizon known to be productive.
(10) Economically producible. The term economically producible, as it relates to a resource,
means a resource which generates revenue that exceeds, or is reasonably expected to exceed,
the costs of the operation. The value of the products that generate revenue shall be determined
at the terminal point of oil and gas producing activities as defined in paragraph (a)(16) of this
section.
(11) Estimated ultimate recovery (EUR). Estimated ultimate recovery is the sum of reserves
remaining as of a given date and cumulative production as of that date.
(12) Exploration costs. Costs incurred in identifying areas that may warrant examination
and in examining specific areas that are considered to have prospects of containing oil and gas
reserves, including costs of drilling exploratory wells and exploratory-type stratigraphic test wells.
Exploration costs may be incurred both before acquiring the related property (sometimes
referred to in pail as prospecting costs) and after acquiring the property. Principal types of
exploration costs, which include depreciation and applicable operating costs of support
equipment and facilities and other costs of exploration activities, are:
(i)
Costs of topographical, geographical and geophysical studies, rights of access to

properties to conduct those studies, and salaries and other expenses of geologists,
geophysical crews, and others conducting those studies. Collectively, these are
sometimes referred to as geological and geophysical or "G&G" costs.

(ii)
Costs of carrying and retaining undeveloped properties, such as delay rentals, ad

valorem taxes on properties, legal costs for title defense, and the maintenance
of land and lease records.
(iii)
Dry hole contributions and bottom hole contributions.
(iv)
Costs of drilling and equipping exploratory wells.
(v)
Costs of drilling exploratory-type stratigraphic test wells.
(13) Exploratory well. An exploratory well is a well drilled to find a new field or to find a new
reservoir in a field previously found to be productive of oil or gas in another reservoir. Generally,
an exploratory well is any well that is not a development well, an extension well, a service well, or
a stratigraphic test well as those items are defined in this section.
(14) Extension well.
reservoir.
An extension well is a well drilled to extend the limits of a known
(15)
Field. An area consisting of a single reservoir or multiple reservoirs all grouped on or
related to the same individual geological structural feature and/or stratigraphic condition. There
may be two or more reservoirs in a field which are separated vertically by intervening impervious
strata, or laterally by local geologic barriers, or by both. Reservoirs that are associated by being
in overlapping or adjacent fields may be treated as a single or common operational field. The
geological terms "structural feature" and "stratigraphic condition" are intended to identify
localized geological features as opposed to the broader terms of basins, trends, provinces,
plays, areas-of-interest, etc.
(16)
Oil and gas producing activities.

(i)
Oil and gas producing activities include:

(A)
The search for crude oil, including condensate and natural gas liquids, or
natural gas (oil and gas) in their natural states and original locations;
(B)
The acquisition of property rights or properties for the purpose of further

exploration or for the purpose of removing the oil or gas from such properties;
(C)
The construction, drilling, and production activities necessary to retrieve oil

and gas from their natural reservoirs, including the acquisition, construction,
installation, and maintenance of field gathering and storage systems, such as:
(D)
(1)
Lifting the oil and gas to the surface; and
(2)
Gathering, treating, and field processing (as in the case of processing

gas to extract liquid hydrocarbons); and
Extraction of saleable hydrocarbons, in the solid, liquid, or gaseous state, from

oil sands, shale, coalbeds, or other nonrenewable natural resources which are
intended to be upgraded into synthetic oil or gas, and activities undertaken
with a view to such extraction.
Instruction 1 to paragraph (a)(16)(i): The oil and gas production function shall be
regarded as ending at a terminal point, which is the outlet valve on the lease or field
storage tank. If unusual physical or operational circumstances exist, it may be
appropriate to regard the terminal point for the production function as:
a.
The first point at which oil, gas, or gas liquids, natural or synthetic, are delivered to a
main pipeline, a common carrier, a refinery, or a marine terminal; and
b.
In the case of natural resources that are intended to be upgraded into synthetic oil
or gas, if those natural resources are delivered to a purchaser prior to upgrading,
the first point at which the natural resources are delivered to a main pipeline, a
common carrier, a refinery, a marine terminal, or a facility which upgrades such
natural resources into synthetic oil or gas.
Instruction 2 to paragraph (a)(16)(i): For purposes of this paragraph (a)(16), the

term saleable hydrocarbons means hydrocarbons that are saleable in the state in which
the hydrocarbons are delivered.
(ii)
Oil and gas producing activities do not include:

(A)
Transporting, refining, or marketing oil and gas;
(B)
Processing of produced oil, gas or natural resources that can be upgraded

into synthetic oil or gas by a registrant that does not have the legal right to
produce or a revenue interest in such production;
(C)
Activities relating to the production of natural resources other than oil, gas, or
natural resources from which synthetic oil and gas can be extracted; or
(D) Production of geothermal steam.

(17)
Possible reserves. Possible reserves are those additional reserves that are less certain
to be recovered than probable reserves.
(i)
When deterministic methods are used, the total quantities ultimately recovered from
a project have a low probability of exceeding proved plus probable plus possible
reserves. When probabilistic methods are used, there should be at least a 10%
probability that the total quantities ultimately recovered will equal or exceed the
proved plus probable plus possible reserves estimates.
(ii)
Possible reserves may be assigned to areas of a reservoir adjacent to probable

reserves where data control and interpretations of available data are progressively
less certain. Frequently, this will be in areas where geoscience and engineering
data are unable to define clearly the area and vertical limits of commercial
production from the reservoir by a defined project.
(iii)
Possible reserves also include incremental quantities associated with a greater

percentage recovery of the hydrocarbons in place than the recovery quantities
assumed for probable reserves.
(iv)
The proved plus probable and proved plus probable plus possible reserves
estimates must be based on reasonable alternative technical and commercial
interpretations within the reservoir or subject project that are clearly documented,
including comparisons to results in successful similar projects.
(v)
Possible reserves may be assigned where geoscience and engineering data

identify directly adjacent portions of a reservoir within the same accumulation that
may be separated from proved areas by faults with displacement less than
formation thickness or other geological discontinuities and that have not been
penetrated by a wellbore, and the registrant believes that such adjacent portions
are in communication with the known (proved) reservoir. Possible reserves may
be assigned to areas that are structurally higher or lower than the proved area if
these areas are in communication with the proved reservoir.
(vi) Pursuant to paragraph (a)(22)(iii) of this section, where direct observation has defined
a highest known oil (HKO) elevation and the potential exists for an associated gas
cap, proved oil reserves should be assigned in the structurally higher portions of the
reservoir above the HKO only if the higher contact can be established with
reasonable certainty through reliable technology. Portions of the reservoir that do
not meet this reasonable certainty criterion may be assigned as probable and
possible oil or gas based on reservoir fluid properties and pressure gradient
interpretations.
(18) Probable reserves. Probable reserves are those additional reserves that are less
certain to be recovered than proved reserves but which, together with proved reserves, are as
likely as not to be recovered.
(i)
When deterministic methods are used, it is as likely as not that actual remaining
quantities recovered will exceed the sum of estimated proved plus probable
reserves. When probabilistic methods are used, there should be at least a 50%
probability that the actual quantities recovered will equal or exceed the proved plus
probable reserves estimates.
(ii)
Probable reserves may be assigned to areas of a reservoir adjacent to proved

reserves where data control or interpretations of available data are less certain,
even if the interpreted reservoir continuity of structure or productivity does not meet
the reasonable certainty criterion. Probable reserves may be assigned to areas
that are structurally higher than the proved area if these areas are in communication
with the proved reservoir.
(iii)
Probable reserves estimates also include potential incremental quantities

associated with a greater percentage recovery of the hydrocarbons in place than
assumed for proved reserves.
(iv)
See also guidelines in paragraphs (a)(17)(iv) and (a)(17)(vi) of this section.
(19) Probabilistic estimate. The method of estimation of reserves or resources is called

probabilistic when the full range of values that could reasonably occur for each unknown
parameter (from the geoscience and engineering data) is used to generate a full range of
possible outcomes and their associated probabilities of occurrence.
(20)
Production costs.
(i)
Costs incurred to operate and maintain wells and related equipment and facilities,
including depreciation and applicable operating costs of support equipment and
facilities and other costs of operating and maintaining those wells and related
equipment and facilities, they become part of the cost of oil and gas produced.
Examples of production costs (sometimes called lifting costs) are:
(A)
Costs of labor to operate the wells and related equipment and facilities.
(B)
Repairs and maintenance.
(C)
Materials, supplies, arid fuel consumed and supplies utilized in operating the
wells and related equipment and facilities.
(ii)
(D)
Property taxes and insurance applicable to proved properties and wells and
related equipment and facilities.
(E)
Severance taxes.
Some support equipment or facilities may serve two or more oil and gas producing
activities and may also serve transportation, refining, and marketing activities. To
the extent that the support equipment and facilities are used in oil and gas
producing activities, their depreciation and applicable operating costs become
exploration, development or production costs, as appropriate. Depreciation,
depletion, and amortization of capitalized acquisition, exploration, and development
costs are not production costs but also become part of the cost of oil and gas
produced along with production (lifting) costs identified above.
(21) Proved area.

specifically attributed.
The part of a property to which proved reserves have been
(22) Proved oil and gas reserves. Proved oil and gas reserves are those quantities of oil and
gas, which, by analysis of geoscience and engineering data, can be estimated with reasonable
certainty to be economically produciblefrom a given date forward, from known reservoirs, and
under existing economic conditions, operating methods, and government regulationsprior to
the time at which contracts providing the right to operate expire, unless evidence indicates that
renewal is reasonably certain, regardless of whether deterministic or probabilistic methods are
used for the estimation. The project to extract the hydrocarbons must have commenced or the
operator must be reasonably certain that it will commence the project within a reasonable time.
(i)
The area of the reservoir considered as proved includes:

(A)
The area identified by drilling and limited by fluid contacts, if any, and
(B)
Adjacent undrilled portions of the reservoir that can, with reasonable certainty,
be judged to be continuous with it and to contain economically producible oil
or gas on the basis of available geoscience and engineering data.
(ii)
In the absence of data on fluid contacts, proved quantities in a reservoir are limited
by the lowest known hydrocarbons (LKH) as seen in a well penetration unless
geoscience, engineering, or performance data and reliable technology establishes
a lower contact with reasonable certainty.
(iii)
Where direct observation from well penetrations has defined a highest known oil
(HKO) elevation and the potential exists for an associated gas cap, proved oil
reserves may be assigned in the structurally higher portions of the reservoir only if
geoscience, engineering, or performance data and reliable technology establish the
higher contact with reasonable certainty.
(iv)
Reserves which can be produced economically through application of improved

recovery techniques (including, but not limited to, fluid injection) are included in the
proved classification when:
(A)
Successful testing by a pilot project in an area of the reservoir with properties

no more favorable than in the reservoir as a whole, the operation of an
installed program in the reservoir or an analogous reservoir, or other evidence
using reliable technology establishes the reasonable certainty of the
engineering analysis on which the project or program was based; and
(B)
(v)
(23)
The project has been approved for development by all necessary parties and
entities, including governmental entities.
Existing economic conditions include prices and costs at which economic

producibility from a reservoir is to be determined. The price shall be the average
price during the 12-month period prior to the ending date of the period covered by
the report, determined as an unweighted arithmetic average of the
first-day-of-the-month price for each month within such period, unless prices are
defined by contractual arrangements, excluding escalations based upon future
conditions.
Proved properties. Properties with proved reserves.
(24) Reasonable certainty. If deterministic methods are used, reasonable certainty means a
high degree of confidence that the quantities will be recovered. If probabilistic methods are
used, there should be at least a 90% probability that the quantities actually recovered will equal
or exceed the estimate. A high degree of confidence exists if the quantity is much more likely to
be achieved than not, and, as changes due to increased availability of geoscience (geological,
geophysical, and geochemical), engineering, and economic data are made to estimated ultimate
recovery (EUR) with time, reasonably certain EUR is much more likely to increase or remain
constant than to decrease.
(25) Reliable technology. Reliable technology is a grouping of one or more technologies
(including computational methods) that has been field tested and has been demonstrated to
provide reasonably certain results with consistency and repeatability in the formation being
evaluated or in an analogous formation.
(26) Reserves. Reserves are estimated remaining quantities of oil and gas and related
substances anticipated to be economically producible, as of a given date, by application of
development projects to known accumulations. In addition, there must exist, or there must be a
reasonable expectation that there will exist, the legal right to produce or a revenue interest in the
production, installed means of delivering oil and gas or related substances to market, and all
permits and financing required to implement the project.
Note to paragraph (a)(26): Reserves should not be assigned to adjacent reservoirs
isolated by major, potentially sealing, faults until those reservoirs are penetrated and
evaluated as economically producible. Reserves should not be assigned to areas that
are clearly separated from a known accumulation by a non-productive reservoir (i.e.,
absence of reservoir, structurally low reservoir, or negative test results). Such areas
may contain prospective resources (i.e., potentially recoverable resources from
undiscovered accumulations).
(27) Reservoir. A porous and permeable underground formation containing a natural
accumulation of producible oil and/or gas that is confined by impermeable rock or water barriers
and is individual and separate from other reservoirs.
(28) Resources. Resources are quantities of oil and gas estimated to exist in naturally
occurring accumulations. A portion of the resources may be estimated to be recoverable, and
another portion may be considered to be unrecoverable. Resources include both discovered
and undiscovered accumulations.
(29)
Service well.
A well drilled or completed for the purpose of supporting production in
an existing field. Specific purposes of service wells include gas injection, water injection, steam
injection, air injection, salt-water disposal, water supply for injection, observation, or
injection for in-situ combustion.
(30) Stratigraphic test well. A stratigraphic test well is a drilling effort, geologically directed,
to obtain information pertaining to a specific geologic condition. Such wells customarily are
drilled without the intent of being completed for hydrocarbon production. The classification also
includes tests identified as core tests and all types of expendable holes related to hydrocarbon
exploration. Stratigraphic tests are classified as exploratory type if not drilled in a known area or
development type if drilled in a known area.
(31) Undeveloped oil and gas reserves. Undeveloped oil and gas reserves are reserves of
any category that are expected to be recovered from new wells on undrilled acreage, or from
existing wells where a relatively major expenditure is required for recompletion.
(32)
(i)
Reserves on undrilled acreage shall be limited to those directly offsetting

development spacing areas that are reasonably certain of production when drilled,
unless evidence using reliable technology exists that establishes reasonable
certainty of economic producibility at greater distances.
(ii)
Undrilled locations can be classified as having undeveloped reserves only if a

development plan has been adopted indicating that they are scheduled to be drilled
within five years, unless the specific circumstances, justify a longer time.
(iii)
Under no circumstances shall estimates for undeveloped reserves be attributable to

any acreage for which an application of fluid injection or other improved recovery
technique is contemplated, unless such techniques have been proved effective by
actual projects in the same reservoir or an analogous reservoir, as defined in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section, or by other evidence using reliable technology
establishing reasonable certainty.
Unproved properties. Properties with no proved reserves.
Appendix IV
Projeto C1820 Listagem de Materiai

01. Documento Impresso: Prospecto Iara Poo 1 BRSA 618 RJS
02. Documento Impresso: Prospecto Tupi Poo 1- BRSA 369A RJS
03. Documento Impresso: Prospecto Jpiter Poo 1 BRSA 559 RJS
04. Documento Impresso: Prospecto Guar Poo 1 BRSA 594 - SPS
05. Documento Impresso: Prospecto Franco Poo 2 ANP 1 RJS
06. Documento Impresso: Prospecto Libra Poo 2 ANP -2 - RJS
07. Documento Impresso: Prospecto Pau-Brasil
08. Documento Impresso: Prospecto Florim
09. Documento Impresso: Prospecto Peroba
10. Documento Impresso: Prospecto NE Tupi
11. Documento Impresso: Estimativas de Volume dos Prospectos Selecionados para
Certificao.
12. CD Bacia de Santos Poos Pr-Sal Projeto: Certificao
13. DVD PLTs e PC 660
14. DVD Certificadora Avaliao Econnica Jpiter e Pau Brasil
15. Declarao de Recebimento e Termo de Compromisso de Confidencialidade:
1 DVD com os seguintes arquivos:
. 1 arquivo contendo perfil composto do poo 9 BRSA 716 RJS
. 1 arquivo em ppt. Apresentando dados de PLTs
. 1 composite do poo 9 BRSA 716 RJS (impresso em papel)
. 7 arquivos contendo perfis eltricos de poos em formato .las (1-SPS-55, 1RJS-628a, 3-RJS-646, 1-RJS-652a, 2-ANP-1).
. 1 arquivo em pdf, contendo dados de liberao flash (1-RJS-0652A).
. 1 arquivo em Power-point, contendo dados de presso-wireline de poos da
rea de Tupi-Iracema.
. 1 arquivo em Power-point apresentando dados de presso e volume.
. 1 arquivo em Power-point apresentando dados de pr-teste (DST 9-BRSA-716RJS).
a. Projeto Petrel Certification_GCA (arquivos .ptd e .pet).
b. Avaliao econmica final (Planilha Excel e Relatrio.doc)
a. Apresentao com o resumo da avaliao geolgica e geofsica e potencial
volumtrico de cada prospecto/lead.
b. 8 poos contendo curvas em formato LAS dos perfis geofsicos, arquivos de

imagem do composite de cada poo e perfil composto. Poos:
1BRSA369ARJS, 1BRSA559ARJS, 1BRSA618RJS, 1BRSA594SPS,
2ANP1RJS, 3BRSA496RJS, 3BRSA755ARJS, 3BRSA788SPS.
a. Blocos Exploratrios (formato TXT)
b. Horizontes XYZ (formato TXT)
c. Mapas Certificao (formato PDF)
d. Prospectos (formato PDF)
e. Sees Geolgicas (formato PDF)
f. Sees Ssmicas (formato PDF)
a. Dados de PVT do poo 3-BRSA-RJS (Formato .pdf e .ppt)
b. Dados de Permeabilidade Relativa do poo 3-BRSA-496-RJS
c. Anlise de Molhabilidade e presso capilar centrfuga do poo 3-RJS-0646RJS
d. Anlises de capilarimetria de mercurio em amostras do poo 3-RJS-646
e. Anlise de PVT e TFR
f. Modelagem Termodinamica de fluido de poo 3-RJS-0646
g. Dados de PVT dos poos 1-BRSA-594-SPS, 1BRSA369ARJS (1BRSA628A),
1BRSA559ARJS (1RJS652A)
a. 7 arquivos referentes s totalizaes quantitativas da caracterstica dos
reservatrios
b. 2 arquivos com o resumo do resultado dos Testes de Formao poo
revestido realizados nos poos-chuva
c. 4 arquivos referentes anlise dos fludos recuperados em teste de formao
ou a cabo
d. Relatrio de clculo de volume para os 10 prospectos selecionados para a
certificao
1 CD com os seguintes arquivos:
a. Apresentao com dados de custos e premissas para explorao do campo de
Tupi (formato PPT)
b. Curva de produo da simulao feita para Tupi (formato XLS)
c. Exemplo de fluxo de caixa para um projeto tpico do pr sal (formato XLS)
a. 1 arquivo em Power-point apresentando pr-testes dos poos
b. 1 arquivo em Power-point apresentando dados de petrofsica
c. 1arquivo de PVT leo do poo 1-BRSA-559-RJS (1RJS652A)
d. 2 arquivos em .jpg apresentando dados de TFR
e. 1 arquivo em .pdf, figura sobre a comunicao hidrulica em TUPI.
f. 1 arquivo em .pdf contendo mapa da bacia de Santos
g. 1 arquivo.doc, informaes sobre poos
h. 6 arquivos em .xls contendo dados de reservas (preliminar)
i. 1 arquivo em .doc contendo Relatrio de Avaliao econmica (preliminar)

a. 1 arquivo contendo relatrio de avaliao econmica de Jpiter e Pau Brasil
(formato .doc)
b. 1 arquivo em formato .xls (Jpiter avaliao econmica)
c. 1 arquivo em formato .xls (Pau Brasil (mdulo-tipo de Tupi) avaliao
econmica)
d. 1 arquivo em formato .xls (Pau Brasil ( mdulo-tipo Jpiter) avaliao
econmica)
26. Mapa 9 RJS-660
27. Certificao: Pr-Sal da Bacia de Santos Seo Geolgica Regional Corcovado
Parati Florim Franco Libra
28. Certificao: Pr-Sal da Bacia de Santos Seo Geolgica Regional Florim Iara
Iracema Tupi Guar Sul de Guar
29. Certificao: Pr-Sal da Bacia de Santos Seo Geolgica Regional Florim Iara
Iracema Tupi Peroba
30. Certificao: Pr-Sal da Bacia de Santos Seo Geolgica Regional Tamba
Franco Iara NE de Tupi Jupiter Pau Brasil
31. Certificao: Pr-Sal da Bacia de Santos Seo Geolgica Regional Tamba
Franco Iara NE de Tupi Tupi Guar Sul de Guar
32. Mapa Estrutural Regional - Fundo do Mar em Profundidade
33. Mapa Estrutural Regional Topo do Sal em Profundidade
34. Mapa Estrutural Regional Base do Sal em Profundidade
35. Mapa Estrutural Regional Topo do Rifte Superior em Profundidade
36. Mapa Estrutural Regional Topo do Rifte Inferior em Profundidade
37. Mapa Estrutural Regional Embasamento em Profundidade
38. Mapa Estrutural Regional Fundo do Mar/ Topo do Sal
39. Mapa Ispaco Regional Topo do Sal/ Base do Sal
40. Mapa Ispaco Regional Base do Sal/ Topo do Rifte Superior
41. Mapa Ispaco Regional Topo do Rifte Superior/Topo do Rifte Inferior
42. Mapa Ispaco Regional Topo do Rifte Inferior/ Embasamento
43. Sees Geolgicas Regionais
44. CD - Bacia de Santos Projeto: Certificao do Pr-Sal Contrato No 5.118/2010ANP-008.977) Contedo: Apresentao Resumo da Anlise Geolgica e Geofsica
e Estimativa de Volume.
45. CD -Apresentao GCA Certificao AGI Tupi curva
46. DVD - Petrofsica e Avaliao Econmica Preliminar
47. CD - Tan PEV_SCD
48. DVD - Arquivos de Poos (.LAS) e PVT 652

49. CD - Certificao PVT Permeabilidade
50. DVD - Anlise dos Fluidos, Relatrio Volumes, Testes de Formao
51. CD - Certificao Pr-sal Bacia de Santos Geologia e Geofsica
52. Word Doc. - Anlise de Viabilidade Econmica Campo de Albacora Leste
53. Word Doc. - Anlise de Viabilidade Econmica Campo de Frade
54. Excel GD_C-12009-33000167000101-BM-S-11
55. Excel GD_C-12010-33000167000101-BM-S-11
56. Excel GD_C-32009-33000167000101-BM-S-11
57. Excel GD_C-42008-33000167000101-BM-S-11
58. Excel GD_C-42009-33000167000101-BIRIBA
59. Excel GD_C-42009-33000167000101-BM-S-11
- 1 DVD com os seguintes arquivos:
a. 1 arquivo em Power-point apresentando pr-testes dos poos
b. 1 arquivo em Power-point apresentando dados de petrofsica
c. 1arquivo de PVT leo do poo 1-BRSA-559A-RJS (1RJS652A)
d. 2 arquivos em .jpg apresentando dados de TFR
e. 1 arquivo em .pdf, figura sobre a comunicao hidrulica em TUPI.
f. 1 arquivo em .pdf contendo mapa da bacia de Santos
g. 1 arquivo.doc, informaes sobre poos
h. 6 arquivos em .xls contendo dados de reservas (preliminar)
i. 1 arquivo em .doc contendo Relatrio de Avaliao Econmica (preliminar)
61. Mapa Estrutural da Base do Sal
62. Mapa da Bacia de Santos
63. Carta no.003/2010/SDB/RJ ANP Envio de Material Complementar:
a. Documento impresso: Presso Mnima de Miscibilidade com Injeo de Gs no
Fluido de Tupi;
b. Documento impresso: Tupi TLD;
c. Documento impresso: Resposta aos questionamentos da Gaffney de 20/07/2010.
64. Documento impresso: Presso Mnima de Miscibilidade com Injeo de Gs no Fluido
de Tupi
65. Documento impresso: Presso Mnima de Miscibilidade com Injeo de Gs no
Fluido de Tupi
66. Documento impresso: Tupi TLD
67. Documento impresso: Resposta aos questionamentos da Gaffney de 20/07/2010
68. Documento impresso: Relatrio de Avaliao econmica dos Prospectos selecionados
para a certificao
69. Documento impresso: Avaliao Econmica dos Prospectos Jpiter e Pau Brasil
70. Avaliao Econmica e Modelo do Petrel
71. Mapa 2-ANP-1-RJS
Appendix V
Analytical Formation
Confidential Information
Appendix VI
Analise do Caso Base (para diferentes taxas de desconto), com e sem venda de gs, considerando o
pagamento de 0.5% sobre o faturamento bruto a titulo de pesquisa e desenvolvimento
Discount rate
DISCOVERY/PROSPECT
Discount rate
DISCOVERY/PROSPECT
7.5%
8.0%
8.5%
9.0%
9.5%
10.0%
7.5%
8.0%
8.5%
Franco
14.77
13.73
12.78
11.91
11.10
10.36
9.0%
9.5%
10.0%
Franco
13.53
12.59
11.72
10.93
10.19
Libra
13.93
12.90
11.95
11.08
10.28
9.52
9.55
Libra
12.77
11.82
10.95
10.16
9.44
8.77
Extension Tupi
14.07
13.27
12.52
11.82
NE Tupi
12.59
11.85
11.15
10.50
11.17
10.57
Extension Tupi
13.02
12.29
11.60
10.97
10.37
9.82
9.90
9.33
NE Tupi
11.76
11.07
10.43
9.83
9.27
8.75
Peroba
10.52
9.89
9.30
8.74
8.22
7.73
Peroba
10.02
9.43
8.87
8.35
7.86
7.40
Extension Iara
10.54
9.74
9.01
8.34
7.72
7.15
Extension Iara
9.91
9.17
8.49
7.87
7.30
6.77
Florim
9.44
8.81
8.21
7.66
7.13
6.64
Florim
8.99
8.40
7.85
7.33
6.85
6.39
Extension Jupiter
8.17
7.47
6.83
6.25
5.71
5.22
Extension Jupiter
7.98
7.30
6.69
6.13
5.62
5.14
Pau Brasil
8.29
7.62
7.01
6.44
5.92
5.43
Pau Brasil
8.13
7.49
6.90
6.35
5.85
5.39
Guara Sul
16.17
15.36
14.58
13.85
13.15
12.50
Guara Sul
15.19
14.43
13.71
13.02
12.38
11.76
Base Case (Nymex Strip, inflation) - No Gas - 0.5% de pesquisa e desenvolvimento
Base Case (Nymex Strip, inflation) - with Gas - 0.5% de pesquisa e desenvolvimento
NOTE: The oil equivalent barrels is established using the specific volume of gas production of each discovery/prospect and using the energy equivalent of
180 barrels of oil / million of scf of gas.

GCA Reserve REport

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

GCA Reserve REport

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Gaffney, Cline & Associates

REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF TEN

September 15th. 2010

Gaffney, Cline & Associates

DISCOVERIES CONTINGENT RESOURCES

1. Tupi Including Extension to the South

2. Iara Including the Extension

Gaffney, Cline & Associates

PROSPECTS PROSPECTIVE RESOURCES

Gaffney, Cline & Associates

CORROBORATION OF CASH FLOW ANALYSIS

Gaffney, Cline & Associates

Pre-Salt Play Location Map, Offshore SE Brazil

Santos Basin Pre-Salt Discoveries and Prospects Review

Franco NPV versus Discount Rate

Libra NPV versus Discount Rate

Tupi Extension NPV versus Discount Rate

North East Tupi NPV versus Discount Rate

Peroba NPV versus Discount Rate

Iara Extension NPV versus Discount Rate

Florim NPV versus Discount Rate

Jupiter Extension NPV versus Discount Rate

Pau Brasil NPV versus Discount Rate

South Guara NPV versus Discount Rate

Franco Base Case with +/- 20% variation

Base Case Nymex Price forecast, inflation, no gas sales

Base Case Nymex Price forecast, inflation, with gas sales

Tupi Discovery Location Map

Extension of Tupi Discovery to the South (Base Salt Depth)

Iara Discovery Location Map

Extension of Iara Discovery Map (Base Salt Depth)

Jupiter Discovery Location Map

Extension of Jupiter Discovery Location Map (Base Salt Depth)

Gaffney, Cline & Associates

Franco Discovery Location Map

Franco Discovery Map (Base Salt Depth)

Libra Prospect Location Map

Libra Prospect Map (Base Salt Depth)

North East Tupi Prospect Location Map

North East Tupi Prospect Map (Base Salt Depth)

Peroba Prospect Location Map

Peroba Prospect Map (Base Salt Depth)

Pau Brasil Prospect Location Map

Pau Brasil Prospect Map (Base Salt Depth)

South Guara Prospect Location Map

South Guara Prospect Map (Base Salt Depth)

Florim Prospect Location Map

Florim Prospect Map (Base Salt Depth)

Production Profiles and Cash Flows

Petroleum Resource Management System

Summary of SEC Reserve Definitions

Four Oaks Place

Gaffney, Cline & Associates Inc.

September 15th. , 2010

Ms. Magda Chambriard

R EVIEW AND E VALUATION OF TEN S ELECTED DIS COVERIES

Gaffney, Cline & Associates

Although it considered and modelled a range of both in-place and recoverable

Gaffney, Cline & Associates

Gaffney, Cline & Associates

An example contingency is where evaluation of the accumulation is insufficiently

Gaffney, Cline & Associates

North East Tupi