NiMin - Weisel Initiation 7-1-10

Equity Research
July 1, 2010
Nimin Energy Corporation NNN-T (06/30/10): $1.05 USD

High Growth, Heavy Oil Play With EOR Kicker; Initiating OVERWEIGHT
Coverage With An Overweight Rating Initiating Coverage
ENERGY Key Data FY 2009 2010 2011
52-Week Range: $0.41-$1.77 CFPS diluted
Oil & Gas Exploration and Market Cap. (mn): $55.0 Q1 $0.00A ($0.02)A $0.02E
Production Shares Out. (mn): 52.4 Q2 $0.00A $0.00E $0.03E
NEUTRAL Avg. Daily Vol.: 80,551 Q3 ($0.00)A $0.00E $0.05E
Fiscal Year-End: 31-Dec Q4 ($0.03)A $0.02E $0.06E
Dividend (Annual): NA Year ($0.04)A $0.00E $0.16E
Michael Scialla Yield: NA EV/EBITDA (23.6x) 35.9x 7.0x
720.479.2435
mscialla@tweisel.com Debt/EV*: 0.0% Prod.(MMcfe/d)
Debt/Cash Flow**: 137.1x Q1 3.6A 4.7A 7.3E
Daniel Guffey Capex/Cash Flow**: 66.1x Q2 3.1A 4.7E 8.2E
NAVPS: $3.40 Q3 2.8A 5.1E 9.2E
720.479.2437 Price/NAVPS: 0.3x Q4 3.1A 6.5E 10.4E
dguffey@tweisel.com Prod/Share Growth: NA Year 3.1A 5.3E 8.8E
Price Target: $2.50 EV/Prod.(Mcfe/d) $23,599 $15,873 $9,793
Note: Price is as of the close on the date indicated. All monetary figures are in the same currency as noted in market price
unless noted otherwise. Any price target displayed in the data box above represents either a specific price target or the midpoint
of a range.
* Figures are last actual quarter. ** Figures are current fiscal year estimates.
Executive Summary
What’s New: Nimin Energy recently secured long-term financing, completed its first well in
Wyoming’s oil-prone Bighorn Basin and saw an initial response from a cutting edge enhanced oil
recovery process in Southern California’s San Joaquin Basin.
Why It Matters: The company has an inventory of 88 undeveloped infill drilling locations in the
Bighorn that could drive annual production growth of more than 60% over the next three years.
Based on nearby analog fields, these wells are expected to generate exceptional returns at NYMEX oil
prices of $22/Bl or greater. Moreover, we believe management has an eye on additional under-
exploited fields in the area that could boost the company’s low-risk, oil focused drilling inventory.
In Kern County, California, one of four development wells at the Pleito Creek Field has begun to
respond from a Combined Miscible Drive (CMD) process, which could increase the field’s recovery
from 7% of original oil in place (OOIP) to 25% or more. More importantly, Nimin has identified 40
fields with 4 BBls of OOIP where this patent-pending process could be applicable.
Please see analyst In short, a drilling inventory with minimal geologic risk is poised to deliver robust near-term growth,
certification and other while a proprietary enhanced oil recovery technique holds long-term company making potential.
important disclosures Valuation: The stock is currently valued at what we view as an attractive 23% discount to our peer
starting on page 22 and group, based on price/total NAV and EV/2011E EBITDA. Notably, our NAV estimate of
continuing through page 24. $3.40/share includes only modest unproven resource for the company’s Bighorn Basin properties and
no value for the unproven resource in its CMD project.
Recommendation: We are initiating coverage of Nimin Energy with an Overweight rating and a 12-
month price target of $2.50.
Thomas Weisel Partners does and seeks to do business with companies covered in its research reports. As a result, investors should be
aware that the firm may have a conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of this report. Investors should consider this report as
only a single factor in making their investment decision.
NIMIN ENERGY CORPORATION (NNN-T) Initiating Coverage
COMPANY DESCRIPTION
Carpinteria, California-based Nimin Energy Corp. is a TSX listed company focused on the
acquisition and exploitation of under-developed oil properties in the United States. The
company’s principle assets are in Wyoming’s Bighorn Basin, California’s San Joaquin Basin and
onshore southern Louisiana (Figures 1 & 2).
Figure 1: Nimin Energy Operations
Source: © Nimin Energy Corp., 2010; reprinted with permission
Figure 2: 2009 Results And 2010E Capex
2009 Production By Field 2009 Proved Reserves 2010E Capex

(Boe/d) (MMBoe) ($Mn)
Pleito Creek, CA Krotz Springs, LA Other Wyoming California Louisiana Ferguson Ranch Pleito Creek
0.34
$2
1.83
201
239
7.24 $10
105
Source: Company reports and Thomas Weisel Partners LLC estimates
Company Description: NiMin Energy Corporation is an oil and gas company that is engaged in the acquisition and development of oil and gas properties
in the United States. Nimin has operated as an exploration and production company since late 2006 and has principal operations in the Bighorn Basin,
Wyoming, the San Joaquin Basin, California and South Louisiana onshore areas of the United States. Approximately 96% of Niman's 29 MMBOE proved
and probable reserves are oil in Wyoming and California.
July 1, 2010 Thomas Weisel Partners LLC
Page 2 of 25 Michael Scialla 720.479.2435
INVESTMENT OVERVIEW
We are initiating coverage of Nimin Energy with an Overweight rating and a 12-month price
target of $2.50.
Underdeveloped Oil Properties To Drive Near-Term Growth

With an inventory of 88 infill locations in Wyoming’s Bighorn Basin, Nimin is well positioned to
drive significant production growth and robust returns from four underexploited oil properties.
For example, we project volumes to increase approximately 65% y/y for both 2010 and 2011,
albeit from a small base. Equally important, a typical infill well at the company’s Ferguson
Ranch Field is expected to generate an IRR of more than 100% and a PVI10 of 6.3, based on a
NYMEX WTI oil price of $80/Bl.
Recent results from the company’s first well, which came in at 100 Bls/d as expected, supports
the potential for significant downspacing in these fields where the current recovery factors (RF)
are projected to be 6-19% of OOIP. This compares to four nearby analogous fields where the
RFs range from 21% to 76% (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Recovery Factors

Estimated Recovery Factors
90%
80% 76%
70%
58%
60%
47%
50%
40%
4%
5%
30%
17% 21%
16%
20% 4%
1% 8%
10% 19% 6% 16%
6% 9%
0%
Ferguson Ranch Hunt Sheep point Willow Draw
Current TWP Est. NNN Est. Analog

Moreover, the same proprietary database with 40 critical parameters that led Nimin to its
privately negotiated acquisition of these four fields could spawn similar opportunities in the
Bighorn and elsewhere.
Long-Term Potential In Patent Pending EOR Process
Nimin could be on the verge of developing a technique to recover significant unrecovered oil
resource in Southern California’s prolific San Joaquin Basin. The company has identified 40
fields in the basin with 4 BBls of crude in place where the RF has been less than 7%.
Management believes its CMD process could boost recoveries to 25-60%. A pilot test at
Nimin’s Pleito Creek Field, which commenced last year, is showing early signs of responding
positively to the CMD flood.
Attractive Valuation, In Our View

The stock is currently valued at 35% of NAV, based on proved reserves only, which compares
to our peer group average of 160%. Likewise, price/total NAV and EV/2011E EBITDA are
29% and 6.0x, respectively, versus our peer averages of 52% and 6.2x. Equally weighting the
latter two measures implies the shares are trading at a 23% discount. Moreover, our NAV
estimate of $3.50/share includes only modest unproven resource in the Bighorn Basin and no
value for the CMD project (Figure 4).
Figure 4: NAV Analysis

NiMin Energy NAV Summary
NAV Estimate NAV Price Sensitivity
$/share IGV ($/Mcfe) NYMEX Gas Oil ($/barrel)
Proved Reserves $2.40 $3.19 ($/Mcf) $40 $60 $80 $100
LT Debt $0.00 $4 $1.70 $2.30 $2.80 $3.40
Other $0.40 Proved $6 $1.70 $2.30 $2.80 $3.40
NAV (proved) $2.80 $8 $1.70 $2.30 $2.90 $3.40
$10 $1.80 $2.30 $2.90 $3.40
Unproved Reserves:
Ferguson Ranch $0.40 $3.31 $4 $0.10 $0.21 $0.64 $0.86
Hunt $0.10 $2.71 Unproved $6 $0.10 $0.21 $0.64 $0.86
Sheep Point $0.04 $1.78 $8 $0.10 $0.21 $0.64 $0.86
Willow Draw $0.10 $1.95 $10 $0.10 $0.21 $0.64 $0.86
Total Unproved $0.64
$4 $1.80 $2.51 $3.44 $4.26
NAV (proved) $2.80 Total $6 $1.80 $2.51 $3.44 $4.26
Unproved $0.64 $8 $1.80 $2.51 $3.54 $4.26
Total $3.44 $10 $1.90 $2.51 $3.54 $4.26
NiMin Energy Unproved Potential

Gross Well Spacing Proved Total Unrisked Risked Unproved NPV10
Wyoming: Boe/well Cost ($M) (Acres) Locations Net Acres Net Acres Risk Factor Net Acres Locations Net (Bcfe) $/share
Ferguson Ranch 290 850 25 25 910 285 50% 143 6 8 0.40
Hunt 120 850 93 12 1,600 484 50% 242 3 2 0.10
Sheep Point 80 850 50 11 900 350 50% 175 4 1 0.04
Willow Draw 80 850 50 42 3,150 1,050 50% 525 11 4 0.10
90 6,560 2,169 1,085 22 15 0.64

PRIMARY RISKS
Oil And Natural Gas Price Volatility

Volatility of future natural gas prices is a significant risk to Nimin’s shareholders. For example,
our NAV estimate falls to $2.70 from $3.50 using a long-term oil price of $60/Bbl. Although
most of the company’s drilling inventory has a low-cost, sustained periods of weak oil and
natural gas prices could prevent the stock from achieving our price target.
Large Percentage Of Undeveloped Reserves

Nimin’s proved reserves are 77% undeveloped, compared to our peer group average of 36%.
Much of these undeveloped reserves are associated with 44 proved undeveloped locations
(PUDs) in the Bighorn Basin. Although we believe the production rate and RF assumptions
underlying these reserves are conservative, the undeveloped weighting creates more uncertainty
for Nimin’s proved reserves versus its competitors. For example, Nimin has drilled only one of
its 44 PUD locations in Wyoming, and has very little production history from this well to verify
its reserve projections, which span more than 35 years.
The bulk of the remainder of the undeveloped reserves is located in California, where the
company had significant negative technical reserve revisions at year-end 2009. In addition, the
company’s reserves are not subject to SEC guidelines because the stock is not traded in the
United States. Consequently, we believe reserve estimates pose a significant risk for
shareholders.
Micro Cap Company With Strong Competition

Nimin is a micro cap and trades an average of 24,000 shares per day, or roughly $24,000 of
value. While this is a reasonable volume for its market cap of $61mn, it could be difficult to
build or sell meaningful positions without materially impacting the stock price.
In addition, the company has production of less than 1,000 Boe/d and proved reserves of only
9.4 MMBoe. Therefore, Nimin’s ability to finance projects and raise capital is limited. Likewise,
the company must compete with larger, better capitalized companies with deeper technical and
personnel resources. As a result, Nimin could be at a disadvantage in vying for the acquisition
of new properties or in selling its oil and natural gas.
Liquidity
Following a recent long-term debt deal, which closed earlier this month, we estimate long-term
debt/2010E EBITDA of 9.6x, versus our peer group average of 1.8x. However, we expect this
ratio to decline to 1.8x next year as production ramps from development projects in Wyoming
and California.

COMPANY BACKGROUND
Reverse Merger With Legacy Spawns Nimin Energy

Incorporated in May 2007 as Nimin Capital Corp., the company completed an initial public
offering for C$300,000 and began trading on the Toronto Venture Exchange in November
2007. Nimin operated as a “Capital Pool Company” (a shell designed to seek out an operating
business and/or assets to be purchased with new shares) until it acquired Legacy Energy, LLC
in May 2009 through a reverse merger.
Founded in 2005, Legacy grew its business via the acquisition and development of oil and gas
assets using a proprietary database to identify under-exploited properties. The company entered
a joint venture with Coastline Energy Corporation in 2005, which allowed Legacy to participate
in exploration prospects in Texas and Louisiana for a monthly retainer fee.
In March 2006, Legacy raised $17mn in a private placement of common stock priced at $1.90
per share. Proceeds were used to participate in eight wells, five of which were discoveries. The
company maintains a non-operated interest of 6-49% in these wells.
In August 2006, Legacy purchased Bakersfield, California-based PetroResource and an interest
in the San Joaquin Basin’s Pleito Creek Field for $1.1 mn. Net production at the time of the
purchase was 30 Bbl/d.
The company raised $35.6mn in September 2007 by issuing 13.6mn shares of common stock at
$2.75 per share. Proceeds were used to fund additional drilling in Louisiana and to further
develop Pleito Creek. In January 2008, Legacy swapped its deep rights in the field to Occidental
Petroleum for additional shallow rights. Legacy currently owns a 100% interest in all zones
from the surface to a depth of 6,500 feet as well as a 33% interest in zones below 6,500 feet.
In January 2008, the company filed a patent application for its proprietary CMD enhanced oil
recovery (EOR) process. In June of that year, Legacy raised $19.5mn in a private placement of
3.9mn common shares at a price of $4.90 per share. Proceeds funded EOR development of
Pleito Creek and exploration drilling in Louisiana.
In September 2009, Nimin acquired Legacy by issuing 37.3mn shares to Legacy’s shareholders.
In connection with this reverse merger, the company completed a public offering consisting
of 11.3mn shares priced at $1.13 per share, after which the new company began trading on the
Toronto Stock Exchange.
In December 2009, Nimin purchased four producing oil fields located in Wyoming’s Bighorn
Basin for $27.3mn. These fields had net proved reserves of 8.9 MMBo and were producing 370
Bls/d of low-gravity crude at the time of the acquisition. The bulk of the acquisition ($22mn)
was funded by a bridge loan syndicated by Ionic Capital Corp.
On May 6, 2010, Nimin raised $11.5mn in an overnight marketed offering of 9.2mn common
shares priced at $1.25 per share. Proceeds will be used to partially fund the company’s 2010
capital expenditure program of $12mn, which includes the drilling of 12 wells in Wyoming and
one well at Pleito Creek Field.
The company recently completed a long-term financing whereby they entered into a $36mn
credit facility which carries a five year term and a 12.5% annual fixed interest rate. Nimin will

use the proceeds of this credit facility to retire its $23mn bridge loan and support the 2010 and
2011 capital budget.
MANAGEMENT
Clarence Cottman, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board

A cofounder of Nimin, Clancy Cottman has more than 27 years experience in the oil and gas
industry. In addition to his role with Nimin, he serves on the Board of Etrion Corporation
(formerly PetroFalcon) and the Advisory Board to Nanes Balkany Partners. Mr. Cottman has
held various senior management positions at PetroFalcon, Benton Oil & Gas and Sun E&P. He
holds a BA from Rochester Institute of Technology and an MBA from the University of Rhode
Island. He is a CPL.
Dr. Sven Hagen, President

A cofounder of Nimin, Dr. Sven Hagen has more than 26 years of experience in the oil and gas
industry. Dr. Hagen has served as president of Nimin since October 2005 and held senior
management positions at PetroFalcon Corporation from 2001 to 2005 and Benton Oil and Gas
Company from 1990 to 2001. Previously, he was an exploration geologist for Standard Oil
Production Company and Shell Oil Company. Dr. Hagen received a BS in Geology from the
University of California at Santa Barbara and a JD in Geology from the University of Wyoming.
Rick McGee, Chief Operating Officer

A cofounder of Nimin, Rick McGee has more than 29 years of experience in the oil and gas
industry. Before joining Nimin, Mr. McGee served as operations manager at Pacific Petroleum,
LLC starting in 1998 and held the same position at Benton Oil and Gas Company from 1993 to
1998. From 1981 until 1993, Mr. McGee worked in operations and later acquisitions for
Graham Resources. He began his career in production drilling with Chevron Corporation in
New Orleans. Mr. McGee holds a BS in Petroleum Engineering from Mississippi State
University.
Jonathan Wimbish, Chief Financial Officer

Jonathan Wimbish has served as CFO of the company since joining Nimin in 2007. Previously,
he was a portfolio manager, managing director and cofounder of Marketus, LLC, an equity-
based hedge fund for which he managed all energy investments from its founding in 2002. Mr.
Wimbish was also a managing director and portfolio manager at ING Furman Selz Asset
Management and an analyst with Husic Capital. He began his career at MasterCard
International. He holds a BA in Economics from UCLA as well as an MBA from Columbia
Business School. Mr. Wimbish is also a CFA Charterholder.

OIL AND GAS PROPERTIES
Big Horn Basin

Since the discoveries of Garland and Greybull fields in 1906 and 1907, respectively, Wyoming’s
Big Horn Basin has produced more than 2.4 BBoe. By 1950, some 50 fields with 1 MMBoe or
more had been discovered in anticlines around the basin’s margins. Three of these, Garland,
Oregon Basin and Elk Hills Basin, are giant fields with combined production of more than 1
BBoe. Despite its maturity, the basin is experiencing renewed activity buoyed by favorable oil
prices. For example, Marathon Oil will drill 25 new Bighorn wells this year, including six at
Oregon Basin Field, which was discovered in 1912 and still produces from wells that are nearly
100 years old.
Nimin entered the basin at the end of last year, when it acquired four fields on the western
margin of the Bighorn in a negotiated transaction from Vernon Faulconer Inc., a private
operator (Figure 5). By our calculations, the $27.3mn acquisition should generate an IRR well
above 20%, based on proved reserves only and a flat NYMEX oil price of $60/Bl. Although
the water cut from these fields is roughly 98%, only 11% of the OOIP is expected to be
recovered, compared to eight analogous fields in the basin where the recovery factor is
projected to be 58% of OOIP. Therefore, the acquired properties appear to be underexploited
and could hold significant proved undeveloped and probable reserves.
Figure 5: Bighorn Basin Properties

Nimin’s reserves assume that the drilling density for each of its four fields can be increased from
the current range of 25-108 acres/well to a level comparable to nearby fields, which are spaced
on 5-14 acres/well. Proved undeveloped reserves for each infill location were booked at 70% of
the historical average producer for each field, while probable infill locations were assigned 55%
of the average producer.
Geologic Setting
The Bighorn is a deep, intermontane basin in north central Wyoming and south central
Montana with sediments up to 20,000 feet thick. A prolific oil producer during the first half of
the last century, most of the Bighorn’s oil was discovered in large faulted anticlines near the
basin’s shallow margins. The primary reservoirs are the Permian-aged Phosphoria,
Pennsylvanian-aged Tensleep and Mississippian-aged Madison formations. Numerous fields in
this basin margin anticline play produce from multiple zones, which tend to have a single oil-
water contact (in some cases tilted) that can cut across formation boundaries.
The most prolific reservoirs are found in the massive (commonly 250 feet thick or more) sands
of the Tensleep. These sands, which may have originally covered more than 200,000 square
miles of the North American Cratonic Shelf, are equivalent to the Tensleep, Minnelusa,
Quadrant, Casper and Weber sands in several Rocky Mountain basins. The Tensleep grades
upward from a shallow marine to continental sandstone. The lower section consists of thin
sands and carbonates, while the upper member includes a thick, porous eolian (windblown)
sandstone and thin carbonates. Reservoir quality is good (best in the upper section) with
porosity and permeability typically in the ranges of 10- 20% and 50-250md, respectively.
Above the Tensleep, the organic-rich Phosphoria Formation was deposited in a shallow marine
environment. Limestones and dolomites in this formation are productive in numerous fields in
both the Bighorn and Wind River basins. The Phosphoria is also believed to be a source rock
for much of the Bighorn’s low-gravity oil reservoirs. These include the underlying Tensleep,
which was sourced from above via an extensive network of fractures.
Overlying the Phosphoria are siltstones and carbonates of the Dinwoody Formation, which was
deposited during early Triassic time. This formation is also productive in several fields on the
western side of the basin, including some of Nimin’s fields.
Ferguson Ranch Field

Discovered by Hunt Petroleum in 1963, Ferguson Ranch Field has produced 5.3 MMBls from
the Phosphoria and Tensleep formations and is currently producing 200 Bls/d from 11 active
wells. The field, which covers 320 acres and is projected to recover 19% of OOIP based on the
current spacing of 25 acres/well, is the most important of the company’s four Bighorn
properties.
Directly south of Ferguson Ranch, Marathon Oil embarked on an infill program after acquiring
Spring Creek Field, which was discovered in 1930 and was producing from 59 wells in 2000.
The company added 54 wells between 2000 and 2007, and boosted production to more than
4,000 Bls/d from 800 Bls/d at the time of the acquisition (Figure 6). Initial production rates of
the infills averaged 100 Bls/d, while EURs are expected to average 230 MBls, or 75% of the
original wells. The field is now spaced on 6 acres/well.
Figure 6: Spring Creek Field Production
Spring Creek Production

5.0 80
4.5 70
4.0
60
3.5
Avg. Well Count

Marathon Began Infill
50
MBoe/d
3.0
2.5 40
2.0 30
1.5
20
1.0
0.5 10
0.0 0
1Q95
1Q96
1Q97
1Q98
1Q99
1Q00
1Q01
1Q02
1Q03
1Q04
1Q05
1Q06
1Q07
1Q08
1Q09
1Q10
Production Producing Wells
Source: Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
An assumed drilling density of 9 acres/well at Ferguson Ranch implies 23 additional locations

could be drilled in the field. Nimin projects 12 PUD and 11 probable infill locations with
average EURs of 345 MBls/well and 287 MBls/well, respectively, compared to the original 13
wells’ average EUR of 510 MBls.
These assumptions appear reasonable, in our view, based on results from Marathon’s infill
drilling program at Spring Creek. In fact, the 54 infill wells that the company completed
between 2000 and 2007 outperformed the field’s original 59 wells during their first five years of
production (Figure 7).

Figure 7: Marathon Oil Infill Well Outperformance

Spring Creek - Infill Well Productivity
(Phosphoria-Tensleep)
140
120
Spring Creek
100 MRO: Infill
Bbls/d 80
60
40
20
0
1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91 97 103 109 115
Month
Source: Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
Nimin’s projections imply that a fully developed Ferguson Ranch will recover 40% of OOIP
(our assumptions are based on a RF of 36%), compared to Spring Creek, where the recovery
factor is expected to be 76%. Although OOIP estimates involve significant uncertainties and
the two fields are not perfectly analogous, this comparison suggests upside to Nimin’s estimates.
Moreover, the Tensleep’s permeability is greater at Ferguson Ranch than Spring Creek, which
supports a higher recovery factor for Nimin’s field in contrast to its lower projection.
The company recently drilled the State #11, its first of 12 planned wells in Ferguson Ranch this
year. Initial production was approximately 100 Bls/d, in line with our type curve.

Ferguson Ranch Well Economics

Our projected Feruson Ranch probable reserve type well generates a pre-tax IRR in excess of
100% and PVI10 of 6.3, assuming a completed well cost of $850,000, an IP of 95 Bls/d, 30-day
average of 87 Bls/d, EUR of 290 MBls and long-term NYMEX WTI oil price of $80/Bl
(Figure 8). NYMEX prices must average at least $22/Bl in order for well economics to meet a
minimum threshold pre-tax IRR of 20%.
Figure 8: Ferguson Ranch

NiMan Energy
Ferguson Ranch
300%
250%
200%
IRR
150%
100%
50%
0%
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
WTI Oil Price ($/MMBTU)

Gross MBoe 250 290 330
Source: Thomas Weisel Partners LLC estimates
Other Bighorn Fields

The Faulconer acquisition also included the Hunt, Willow Draw and Sheep Point fields. All
three produce heavy oil (14◦ to 17◦) from the Tensleep and/or Phosphoria in anticlines along the
western margin of the Bighorn. Recent production rates range from 28 Bls/d at Sheep Point to
72 Bls/d at Willow Draw. All three appear to have significant infill drilling potential.

Bighorn Basin Probable Reserve Potential

We estimate Nimin’s probable reserves in its four Bighorn Basin fields could be worth
$0.60/share (Appendix Table 2), based on the following:
Development of 22 unbooked probable locations over the next three years (50% of the
company’s estimate of 44 locations).
Nine to 30 acre spacing per well in four fields.
Average gross EUR/well of 290 MBls at Ferguson Ranch, 120 MBls at Hunt, 88 MBls at
Sheep Point and 80 MBls at Willow Draw.
Average completed well cost of $850,000.
Average royalties of 20%.
Long-term NYMEX WTI oil price of $80.00/Bl and realized price of $69.60/Bl.
Infrastructure/Marketing
The Bighorn is a mature province with significant infrastructure. Nimin currently sells its heavy
oil to Marathon at a price of approximately NYMEX less $10.60/Bl. Management believes this
differential could contract when TransCanada completes its Keystone Pipeline system, which is
designed to carry heavy Canadian crude oil from Alberta to refineries in the United States. Most
of Nimin’s production is trucked to its sales point.
Water Handling
Tensleep and Phosphoria wells fields produce copious amounts of water, so water handling,
including submersible pumps, contributes to the play’s operating costs of $13-14/Bl. Individual
wells commonly produce more than 5,000 Bls/d of fresh water that is typically discharged on
the surface in settlement ponds, where it evaporates, recedes to aquifers or is used by local
ranchers.
San Joaquin Basin

The San Joaquin Basin (SJB) is a world-class hydrocarbon province that is home to 25 fields that
have each produced more than 100 million barrels of oil. Six of these are among the 25 largest
fields in the United States. Four have produced more than one billion barrels. In total, the
basin has produced approximately 13 billion barrels of oil and 7 Tcf of gas, or more than 2,400
Boe per acre, which qualifies the SJB as one of the most prolific hydrocarbon regions in the
world.
Most of the basin’s production has been heavy oil from shallow reservoirs above 5,000 feet.
Three fields, however, have each produced more than 1 Tcf of gas. The most notable of these
is the North Kettelman Dome field, which has produced nearly 3 Tcf of gas, primarily from the
Temblor formation.
Most of the significant fields in the San Joaquin Basin were discovered more than 60 years ago.
The 10 largest were all found from surface anticlines before 1940. Since 1950, drilling has been
predominantly limited to infill wells. The technology applied to the basin’s shallow, heavy oil
reservoirs has tended to focus on enhanced oil recovery practices like waterfloods and cyclic
steamfloods. For more than a century, the basin has been dominated by major oil companies
that controlled large acreage blocks through mineral fee holdings.
Nimin’s predecessor, Legacy, has been active in the San Joaquin since 2006, when it acquired
PetroResource and an interest in Pleito Creek Field for $1.1mn. Net production at the time of
the purchase was a modest 30 Bbl/d.
Geologic Setting
The San Joaquin Basin lies in a 50-mile wide valley between the Temblor-Diablo and the Sierra
Nevada ranges in central California. It extends 250 miles from the southeast near Bakersfield to
the northwest near Stockton, where a broad east-west trending arch separates the basin from its
northern structural counterpart, the Sacramento Basin.
Several important geologic factors contribute to the prolific nature of the San Joaquin. Because
it was formed in an area of active tectonics and subsided rapidly, the basin collected more than
35,000 feet of sediment over a relatively short period of geologic time. Hydrocarbon generation
and migration occurred early in the life of the basin. The relatively young reservoir sands were
sourced by hydrocarbons early after their deposition, which preserved permeability and porosity
even at great depths.
The late Miocene to mid-Pleistocene orogenies (mountain building events) created most of the
anticlines and faults that trapped hydrocarbons between 2 MYA and 5 MYA. Hydrocarbons
were generated from the organic rich Monterey and Keyenhagen formations in the central
portion of the basin and migrated updip, where they were trapped in reservoirs such as Midway
Sunset, Elk Hills, North Kettelman and Lost Hills on the basin’s western rim.
In Pleito Creek, the primary producing formation is the Miocene-aged Santa Margarita, which is
found at a depth of 1,700 feet to 3,500 feet (Figure 9). This sand averages 115 feet thick and has
excellent reservoir quality with an average porosity of 28% and permeability as high as 800 Md.

Figure 9: San Joaquin Basin Strat-section
Source: Utah Department of Natural Resources
Pleito Creek Field

Located in Kern County, on the southern end of the San Joaquin Basin, Pleito Creek Field is an
east-west trending faulted antcline with a steeply dipping northern limb (Figure 11). The field
has produced a modest 2.2 MMBls of heavy oil from the Santa Margarita Formation since
Exxon discovered it in 1951.
Exxon developed Pleito Creek through the 1960s with 30 wells and attempted to enhance
recovery with pilot cyclic steam stimulation, commonly referred to as “huff and puff”. This
method injects steam in a well, heats the oil (which lowers its viscosity) and then produces the
oil out of the same well. The process initially increased production, but ultimately created a hard
coke layer around wellbores. Consequently, the field has recovered only 2.0 MMBls, or 6% of
OOIP, and is expected to produce only 4.3 MMBls, or 12% of the 35 MMBls of OOIP, with
additional conventional horizontal development.
In 2008, Nimin drilled five horizontal wells in the Santa Margarita with laterals ranging from 350
feet to 1,250 feet as well as average initial production rates of approximately 90 Bls/d. In
addition to halting the field’s decline, the new wells were designed to be used in a pilot test of
the company’s CMD process.
Figure 10: San Joaquin Basin
The CMD Process

CMD is a combination of several EOR techniques, including steam flooding, gravity drainage
and CO2 flooding. The process is initiated with the injection of pure oxygen, a small amount of
water and a surfactant from a vertical injector well. The top of the reservoir ignites when it is
contacted by the oxygen and produces steam and CO2, which heat and pressurize the reservoir
with gas expansion. The CO2 is partially miscible with the oil and reduces its viscosity. The
steam further reduces the oil’s viscosity and also drives it down-dip toward horizontal producing
wells that surround the vertical injector. Nimin is attempting to patent the CMD process, which
it believes could increase the RF at Pleito Creek to a range of 35% to 60% from the current
12%.
Pleito Creek Development Plans

Since acquiring the field, Nimin has constructed an injection facility at Pleito Creek and drilled
five horizontal take wells and one injector well in the Santa Margarita Formation (Figure 11).
The company has also drilled two development wells in the Olcese Formation. In March 2009,
Nimin commenced a CMD pilot with CO2 injection, and then in May, it followed up with
oxygen injection and initial combustion. In response, the reservoir pressure in the pilot area has
stabilized at the targeted level of 1,500 psi; oil viscosity has been reduced as the API gravity has
increased from 17◦ to 19.9◦; and the production rate from the H-2 horizontal well has increased
to 107 Bls/d from its projected natural decline rate of 63 Bls/d.
Figure 11: Pleito Creek Field
If the production rate at the H-2 well continues to incline, we look for Nimin to expand its
CMD program next year.
Potential CMD Economics

If successful, Nimin projects capital expenditures of $33mn for its CMD project at Pleito Creek,
including horizontal producing wells at $1.6mn per well. Assuming the CMD technique
increases the RF at Pleito Creek to 35% from 19%, full field finding and development costs are
expected to range from $5/Bl to $7/Bl. Operating costs are projected to be in the $12/Bl range
for all-in costs of less than $20/Bl. Consequently, the CMD project has the potential to
generate attractive returns.
Broader CMD Potential

Nimin has identified 22 fields in southern California where it believes the CMD process could
enhance recoveries. These fields have low RFs (typically 7% or less) from heavy oil reservoirs
(11◦ to 21◦ API gravity) at depths of 2,000 feet to 6,000 feet. For depths above 2,000 feet, RFs
can be improved significantly with steam floods, while below 6,000 feet, the CMD process
becomes prohibitively expensive. The targeted fields hold some 4 BBls of OOIP, so even a
modest improvement in recovery cold have a significant impact on the company.
Louisiana
Nimin has been active in southern Louisiana since 2005 through its predecessor, Legacy. The
company holds numerous non-operated interests in producing properties in St. Landry,
Jefferson Davis, Vermillion and Acadia parishes. Once the foundation of the company’s reserve
and production base, the Gulf Coast Region is no longer a core area. As such, management has
no plans for future drilling or significant capital expenditures in Louisiana.
FINANCIAL POSITION
Recent Long-Term Financing And Public Share Offering Supports 2010 and
2011 Capital Budget
As of 1Q10 Nimin had $23mn of short-term debt outstanding, $17mn of which resulted from
the December 17, 2009 purchase of the Wyoming assets. On April 12, 2010, Nimin entered into
an agreement with CLG Energy Finance, LLC for a $36mn credit facility, which carries a
maturity of five years with an annual fixed interest rate of 12.5%. This new financing, which
closed on June 30, 2010, will be used to retire the company’s $23mn bridge loan and support the
2010 and 2011 capital budget.
On the heels of the long-term financing agreement, Nimin announced it had raised $11.5mn in
an equity offering of 9.2mn shares at a price of $1.25 per share. Proceeds from this issuance will
be used to fund the 2010 capital budget of $12 mn for 11 infill wells at Ferguson Ranch and one
well at its CMD project in Pleito Creek.
Pro forma the credit facility and equity raise, we estimate 2010E debt/EBITDA of 9.6x, versus
our peer group average of 1.8x, however, we project 2011E debt/EBITDA of only 1.3x due to
our forecast for strong production growth throughout 4Q10 and 2011.

Figure 12: Balance Sheet

Assets 1Q10A 2Q10E 3Q10E 4Q10E 1Q11E
Cash and Investments $0.88 $0.50 $0.50 $0.50 $0.50
Other Current Assets $4.80 $4.80 $4.80 $4.80 $4.80
Property, Plant and Equip. $96.61 $99.35 $101.99 $104.28 $106.00
Unproved Properties $1.35 $1.35 $1.35 $1.35 $1.35
Other Assets $0.69 $0.69 $0.69 $0.69 $0.69
Total Assets $104.33 $106.68 $109.32 $111.61 $113.33
Liabilities
Current Liabilities $3.41 $3.41 $3.41 $3.41 $3.41
Long-term Debt $0.00 $22.40 $26.25 $29.00 $31.27
Deferred Income Taxes $0.00 ($0.42) ($0.88) ($1.06) ($1.27)
Other Liabilities $1.25 $1.25 $1.25 $1.25 $1.25
Shareholders Equity $77.17 $80.04 $79.29 $79.00 $78.66
Total Liabilities/Equity $104.33 $106.68 $109.31 $111.61 $113.33

Operating Results and Estimates - Nimin Energy Corp

($ in millions, except per share data)
2010E 2011E
Q1 Q2E Q3E Q4E FYE % Chg Q1E Q2E Q3E Q4E FYE % Chg
Average daily net production
Natural gas - Mmcf/day 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 -4% 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 -12%
Crude oil and liquids - MBbls/day 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.7 106% 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.3 86%
Total Mcfe produced (6:1) - Bcfe 0.42 0.42 0.46 0.59 1.9 65% 0.65 0.73 0.83 0.94 3.2 66%
Average product prices and margins:
Natural gas - $/Mcf $4.67 $3.60 $4.78 $5.46 $5.87 6% $5.06 $5.06 $5.06 $5.06 $6.31 8%
Crude oil and liquids - $/Bbl $67.92 $67.61 $68.66 $71.97 $69.88 20% $69.22 $69.38 $69.51 $69.62 $71.28 2%
Mcfe (6:1) $9.84 $9.56 $10.07 $10.94 $10.49 -82% $10.65 $10.81 $10.95 $11.06 $11.29 8%
Production costs - Mcfe (6:1) 8.73 8.86 8.69 7.89 8.49 57% 7.51 7.29 7.09 6.86 7.16 -16%
Operating margin - Mcfe (6:1) $1.11 $0.70 $1.38 $3.05 $2.00 -96% $3.14 $3.51 $3.85 $4.20 $4.14 106%
Depl., depr. & amort. - Mcfe (6:1) $2.63 $2.66 $2.68 $2.68 $2.67 Nm $2.63 $2.66 $2.68 $2.68 $2.67 0%
Discretionary cash flow - Mcfe (6:1) ($2.21) $0.03 $0.04 $1.91 $0.11 -102% $1.78 $2.35 $2.90 $3.37 $2.68 2340%
Reserve addition costs - Mcfe (6:1) $1.03 $1.03 $1.03 $1.03 $1.03 Nm $1.38 $1.38 $1.38 $1.38 $1.38 33%
Reinvestment efficiency ratio -2.14x 0.03x 0.04x 1.85x 0.11x Nm 1.30x 1.70x 2.11x 2.45x 1.94x 1730%
Revenue:
Oil and gas sales $3.3 $4.1 $4.7 $6.5 $18.7 459% $7.0 $8.0 $9.3 $10.6 $34.8 86%
Other $0.1 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Nm $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Nm
Total revenue $3.4 $4.1 $4.7 $6.5 $19 459% $7.0 $8.0 $9.3 $10.6 $35 86%
Expenses:
Production Expense $2.0 $2.0 $2.2 $2.8 $8.9 244% $3.0 $3.4 $3.9 $4.4 $14.7 66%
General and administrative $1.8 $1.8 $1.8 $1.9 $7.2 100% $1.9 $1.9 $2.0 $2.0 $7.8 8%
Derivative Contract $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 -100% $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Nm
Interest Expense, net $1.3 $0.3 $0.7 $0.8 $3.2 1599% $0.9 $0.9 $1.0 $1.0 $3.8 19%
Foreign Exchange Loss $0.3 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.3 -27% $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 -100%
DD&A $1.1 $1.1 $1.2 $1.6 $5.0 106% $1.7 $2.0 $2.2 $2.5 $8.4 66%
Other $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 -100% $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Nm
Total expenses $6.5 $5.2 $5.9 $7.0 $24.6 170% $7.5 $8.3 $9.1 $9.9 $34.8 41%
Income from operations before taxes ($3.1) ($1.1) ($1.2) ($0.5) ($5.9) 3% ($0.6) ($0.2) $0.2 $0.6 $0.0 -101%
Current taxes $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Nm $0.0 ($0.0) $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Nm
Deferred taxes 0.1 (0.4) (0.5) (0.2) (1.0) -530% (0.2) (0.1) 0.1 0.2 0.0 -102%
Total taxes $0.1 ($0.4) ($0.5) ($0.2) ($1.0) -529% ($0.2) ($0.1) $0.1 $0.2 $0.0 -102%
Effective tax rate Nm 38.0% 38.0% 38.0% 16.8% Nm 38.0% 38.0% 38.0% 38.0% 38.0% 126%
Net Income (reported) (3.1) (0.7) (0.8) (0.3) (4.9) -18% (0.3) (0.1) 0.1 0.4 0.0 -101%
Oper Earnings Adj Items - - - - - Nm - - - - - Nm
Net Income from Operations ($3.1) ($0.7) ($0.8) ($0.3) ($4.9) -18% ($0.3) ($0.1) $0.1 $0.4 $0.0 -101%
Net Income from operations ($3.1) ($0.7) ($0.8) ($0.3) ($4.9) -72% ($0.3) ($0.1) $0.1 $0.4 $0.0 -101%
Deferred taxes $0.0 ($0.4) ($0.5) ($0.2) ($1.1) -133% ($0.2) ($0.1) $0.1 $0.2 $0.0 -102%
DD&A $1.1 $1.1 $1.2 $1.6 $5.0 Nm $1.7 $2.0 $2.2 $2.5 $8.4 66%
Other $1.1 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1.1 -86% $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 -100%
Discretionary Cash Flow ($0.9) $0.0 $0.0 $1.1 $0.2 -103% $1.2 $1.7 $2.4 $3.2 $8.4 3961%
Free cash flow ($1.9) ($1.0) ($1.1) ($0.3) ($1.8) Nm ($0.3) $0.0 $0.5 $1.0 $4.0 -327%
% Free versus discretionary 204% -7307% -6057% -23% -855% Nm -28% 1% 19% 31% 48% -106%
EBITDA ($0.6) $0.3 $0.7 $1.9 $2.3 -174% $2.1 $2.7 $3.4 $4.2 $12.3 427%
Average diluted shares out (in millions) 52.4 52.5 52.6 52.7 52.6 -67% 52.8 52.9 53.0 53.1 52.8 0%
Per share results - diluted:
Net income - operating ($0.06) ($0.01) ($0.01) ($0.01) ($0.09) 148% ($0.01) ($0.00) $0.00 $0.01 $0.00 -101%
Net income - reported ($0.06) ($0.01) ($0.01) ($0.01) ($0.09) 141% ($0.01) ($0.00) $0.00 $0.01 $0.00 -101%
Cash flow ($0.02) $0.00 $0.00 $0.02 $0.00 -110% $0.02 $0.03 $0.05 $0.06 $0.16 3942%
Sources: Company reports and Thomas Weisel Partners LLC estimates

Ferguson Ranch - WY
Gross Gross Gross Net Net Net Oil Gas Oil Gas
Year Oil Gas Mcfe Oil Gas MMcfe Price Price Revenue Revenue
July 1, 2010
2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0.00 $0.00 0 0
Page 21 of 25
2011 87,567 0 525,401 67,426 0 405 $69.60 $0.00 4,692,884 0
2012 130,356 0 782,133 100,374 0 602 $69.60 $0.00 6,986,015 0
2013 108,778 0 652,666 83,759 0 503 $69.60 $0.00 5,829,614 0
2014 96,973 0 581,840 74,669 0 448 $69.60 $0.00 5,196,992 0
2015 89,084 0 534,502 68,594 0 412 $69.60 $0.00 4,774,172 0
2016 83,223 0 499,338 64,082 0 384 $69.60 $0.00 4,460,085 0
2017 78,209 0 469,255 60,221 0 361 $69.60 $0.00 4,191,382 0
2018 73,517 0 441,099 56,608 0 340 $69.60 $0.00 3,939,899 0
2019 69,106 0 414,633 53,211 0 319 $69.60 $0.00 3,703,505 0
2020 64,959 0 389,755 50,019 0 300 $69.60 $0.00 3,481,295 0
2021 61,062 0 366,370 47,017 0 282 $69.60 $0.00 3,272,417 0
2022 57,398 0 344,388 44,196 0 265 $69.60 $0.00 3,076,072 0
2023 53,954 0 323,725 41,545 0 249 $69.60 $0.00 2,891,508 0
2024 50,717 0 304,301 39,052 0 234 $69.60 $0.00 2,718,017 0
2025 47,674 0 286,043 36,709 0 220 $69.60 $0.00 2,554,936 0
2026 44,813 0 268,880 34,506 0 207 $69.60 $0.00 2,401,640 0
2027 42,125 0 252,748 32,436 0 195 $69.60 $0.00 2,257,542 0
2028 39,597 0 237,583 30,490 0 183 $69.60 $0.00 2,122,089 0
2029 37,221 0 223,328 28,660 0 172 $69.60 $0.00 1,994,764 0
2030 423,669 0 2,542,012 326,225 0 1,957 $69.60 $0.00 22,705,251 0
Total 1,740,000 0 10,440,000 1,339,800 0 8,039 $69.60 $0.00 93,250,080 0
Undiscounted Discounted 10%

NIMIN ENERGY CORPORATION (NNN-T)
Total Prod'n Net Operating Total Net Net Cum Net Net Cum Net
Year Revenue Taxes Loe Cash Flow Capex Cash Flow Cash Flow Cash Flow Cash Flow
2010 0 0 0 0 850,000 (850,000) (850,000) (781,988) (781,988)
2011 4,692,884 281,573 198,255 4,213,056 4,250,000 (36,944) (886,944) (111,678) (893,667)
2012 6,986,015 419,161 369,069 6,197,785 0 6,197,785 5,310,841 4,894,717 4,001,050
2013 5,829,614 349,777 372,760 5,107,078 0 5,107,078 10,417,919 3,663,770 7,664,820
2014 5,196,992 311,820 376,487 4,508,685 0 4,508,685 14,926,605 2,939,526 10,604,346
2015 4,774,172 286,450 380,252 4,107,470 0 4,107,470 19,034,074 2,434,082 13,038,428
2016 4,460,085 267,605 384,055 3,808,425 0 3,808,425 22,842,500 2,051,513 15,089,941
2017 4,191,382 251,483 387,895 3,552,004 0 3,552,004 26,394,503 1,739,433 16,829,375
2018 3,939,899 236,394 391,774 3,311,731 0 3,311,731 29,706,234 1,474,344 18,303,718
2019 3,703,505 222,210 395,692 3,085,603 0 3,085,603 32,791,837 1,248,801 19,552,520 Economics
2020 3,481,295 208,878 399,649 2,872,768 0 2,872,768 35,664,605 1,056,973 20,609,493
2021 3,272,417 196,345 403,645 2,672,427 0 2,672,427 38,337,032 893,880 21,503,372 Net Present Value ($ 000)
2022 3,076,072 184,564 407,682 2,483,826 0 2,483,826 40,820,857 755,274 22,258,647 0% 70,719
2023 2,891,508 173,490 411,759 2,306,259 0 2,306,259 43,127,116 637,532 22,896,179 10% 26,625
2024 2,718,017 163,081 415,876 2,139,060 0 2,139,060 45,266,176 537,562 23,433,741 NPV10 Per Share
2025 2,554,936 153,296 420,035 1,981,605 0 1,981,605 47,247,781 452,724 23,886,465 $0.40
2026 2,401,640 144,098 424,235 1,833,306 0 1,833,306 49,081,087 380,771 24,267,236
2027 2,257,542 135,452 428,478 1,693,611 0 1,693,611 50,774,699 319,782 24,587,018 IG Value $3.31 per Mcf
2028 2,122,089 127,325 432,762 1,562,001 0 1,562,001 52,336,700 268,124 24,855,142 IRR 219%
2029 1,994,764 119,686 437,090 1,437,988 0 1,437,988 53,774,688 224,400 25,079,542 ROI 14.87
2030 22,705,251 1,362,315 4,398,151 16,944,785 0 16,944,785 70,719,473 1,545,414 26,624,956 DROI (10%) 6.22
Payout 1.13 years
Total 93,250,080 5,595,005 11,835,602 75,819,473 5,100,000 70,719,473 26,624,956 Finding Cost $0.63 per Mcf
Source: Company reports and Thomas Weisel LLC estimates
Michael Scialla 720.479.2435

Thomas Weisel Partners LLC
Initiating Coverage
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST.

ANALYST CERTIFICATION AND IMPORTANT DISCLOSURES:
The Research Analyst(s) principally responsible for the analysis of any security or issuer included in this report certifies that the views
expressed accurately reflect the personal views of the Research Analyst(s) about the subject securities or issuers and certifies that no part
of his or her compensation was or is or will be, directly or indirectly, related to the specific recommendations or views expressed by the
Research Analyst(s) in this report.
Our European Conflicts Management Policy is available on our website at http://www.tweisel.com
Notes: Price chart updated as of 6/28/2010. All price targets displayed in the chart above represent either a specific price target or the midpoint of a range. Prior to
November 16, 2006, Thomas Weisel Partners LLC used a three-tier rating system with different rating names and definitions: Outperform, Peer Perform and
Underperform.
Source: First Call, FactSet and Thomas Weisel Partners LLC
Thomas Weisel Partners LLC or Thomas Weisel Partners Canada, Inc. or another affiliate of Thomas Weisel Partners LLC has managed
or co-managed a public offering of securities over the past 12 months for the following company or companies: Nimin Energy
Corporation.
Thomas Weisel Partners LLC or Thomas Weisel Partners Canada, Inc. or another affiliate of Thomas Weisel Partners LLC has received
compensation for investment banking services from the following company or companies mentioned in this report over the past 12
months: Nimin Energy Corporation.
Thomas Weisel Partners LLC or Thomas Weisel Partners Canada, Inc. or another affiliate of Thomas Weisel Partners LLC expects to
receive or intends to seek compensation for investment banking services from the following company or companies mentioned in this
report over the next three months: Nimin Energy Corporation.
Thomas Weisel Partners LLC or Thomas Weisel Partners Canada, Inc. or another affiliate of Thomas Weisel Partners LLC has provided
or is currently providing investment banking services to the following company or companies mentioned in this report during the past
12 months: Nimin Energy Corporation.
Nimin Energy Corporation: We have established a 12-month price target of $2.50, based on our estimated equal weighting between
2010EV/EBITDA and price/NAV multiple being valued at a 20-25% premium to our peer group average. There are always risks that
the target price for any security will not be realized. In addition to general market and macroeconomic risks, oil and natural gas price
volatility, well performance, financial and local oil and gas market risk could adversely affect the stock performance.

The following table outlines the Thomas Weisel Partners LLC stock rating system, along with the relevant definitions, effective
November 16, 2006.
PCT. OF PCT. FOR
SECURITIES WHICH IB
STOCK RATED IN SERVICES HAVE
RATING STOCK RATINGS DEFINITIONS EACH CATEGORY BEEN PROVIDED
When an analyst rates a stock Overweight, he/she is 63.6% 29.2%
advising our clients to carry a position in the stock that is
in excess of its weighting relative to the stocks either in
Overweight (O)
that analyst's coverage or an index identified by the analyst
that includes, but is not limited to, stocks covered by that
analyst.
Total Buy 63.6% 29.2%
When an analyst rates a stock Market Weight, he/she is 34.8% 12.0%
in line with its weighting relative to the stocks either in
Market Weight (M)
that analyst's coverage or an index identified by the analyst
that includes, but is not limited to, stocks covered by that
analyst.
Total Hold 34.8% 12.0%
When an analyst rates a stock Underweight, he/she is 1.6% 14.3%
below its weighting relative to the stocks either in that
Underweight (U)
analyst's coverage or an index identified by the analyst that
includes, but is not limited to, stocks covered by that
analyst.
Total Sell 1.6% 14.3%
Suspended Rating (S) The stock rating has been suspended.
The stock is not rated, but it is covered by a Thomas

Not Rated (NR)
Weisel Partners LLC analyst.
The stock is not covered by a Thomas Weisel Partners
Not Covered (NC)
LLC analyst.
Notes: The percentage of investment banking services is calculated as of 3/31/2010. The percentage of securities rated in each category is calculated as of 7/1/2010. The
new rating system is effective 11/16/2006. An analyst's coverage universe is defined as all of the stocks within the analyst's industry that reasonably are part of his/her
potential coverage, not necessarily the stocks specifically covered. "Buy", "Hold" and "Sell" are not ratings categories defined by Thomas Weisel Partners LLC and should
not be interpreted as investment opinions. We show these categories for illustrative purposes in accordance with NASD and NYSE regulations. The above table includes
Thomas Weisel International stocks.
Source: FactSet and Thomas Weisel Partners LLC
The following grid outlines the Thomas Weisel Partners LLC industry rating system, along with the relevant definitions, effective
November 16, 2006.
INDUSTRY RATINGS INDUSTRY RATINGS DEFINITIONS
When an analyst assigns a Favorable rating to an industry that means he/she believes that, generally, the
Favorable
industry's fundamentals or stock prospects are improving.
When an analyst assigns a Neutral rating to an industry that means he/she believes that, generally, the
Neutral
industry's fundamentals or stock prospects are stable.
When an analyst assigns an Unfavorable rating to an industry that means he/she believes that, generally,
Unfavorable
the industry's fundamentals or stock prospects are deteriorating.
Source: Thomas Weisel Partners LLC

The following grid outlines the Thomas Weisel Partners LLC stock rating system, along with the relevant definitions, in effect from April
4, 2003, to November 16, 2006.
COMPANY RATING RATINGS DEFINITION
The stock is expected to outperform the median performance of the Analyst's coverage universe over the
Outperform (O)
next six to 12 months.
The stock is expected to perform in line with the median performance of the Analyst's coverage universe
Peer Perform (P)
over the next six to 12 months.
The stock is expected to underperform the median performance of the Analyst's coverage universe over
Underperform (U)
the next six to 12 months.
Suspended Rating (S) The stock rating has been suspended.
Not Rated (NR) The stock is not rated, but it is covered by a Thomas Weisel Partners LLC analyst.
Not Covered (NC) The stock is not covered by a Thomas Weisel Partners LLC analyst.
SECTOR RATING SECTOR RATING DEFINITION

Overweight (OW) The Analyst's coverage universe is expected to outperform the S&P 500 over the next six to 12 months.
The Analyst's coverage universe is expected to perform in line with the S&P 500 over the next six to 12
Market Weight (MW)
months.
The Analyst's coverage universe is expected to underperform the S&P 500 over the next six to 12
Underweight (UW)
months.
Source: Thomas Weisel Partners LLC
This report contains statements of fact relating to economic conditions generally and to parties other than Thomas Weisel Partners.
Although these statements of fact have been obtained from and are based on sources that Thomas Weisel Partners believes to be
reliable, we do not guarantee their accuracy and any such information might be incomplete or condensed. All opinions and estimates
included in this report constitute Thomas Weisel Partners LLC's judgment as of the date of this report and are subject to change without
notice. This report is for information purposes only. It is not intended as an offer or a solicitation with respect to the purchase or sale of
a security, and it should not be interpreted as such. This report does not take into account the investment objective, financial situation or
particular needs of any particular investor. Investors should obtain individual financial advice based on their own particular
circumstances before making an investment decision based on the recommendations in this report.
Thomas Weisel Partners International Limited, which is authorized and regulated by the Financial Services Authority, has approved this
document for the purposes of the financial promotion regime under Section 21 of the Financial Services and Markets Act of 2000 for
communication only to eligible counterparties and professional clients. It is not intended for communication to retail customers and it
may not and is not intended to be passed on, directly or indirectly, to retail customers. The investments and/or services detailed in this
document are available only to eligible counterparties and professional clients, and only they should rely upon this document. Retail
clients should not rely on the contents of this document in any way.
© Thomas Weisel Partners LLC, 2010. All rights reserved. Any unauthorized use, duplication or disclosure is prohibited by law and will
result in prosecution.

E Q U I T Y R E S E A R C H D I R E C T O R Y
R. Keith Gay • Senior Managing Director, Head of Research • kgay@tweisel.com • 415.364.2582
Blair Abernethy, CFA • Associate Head of Research – Canada and International • babernethy@tweisel.com • 416.815.3050
Steven P. Halper • Associate Head of Research – United States • shalper@tweisel.com • 212.271.3807
Consumer Healthcare Information Technology and Technology

Pharmaceutical Services
Retailing: Hardlines Steven P. Halper
Applied Technologies
Christian Buss shalper@tweisel.com 212.271.3807 Ajit Pai
cbuss@tweisel.com 212.271.3716 Caroline LeCates 212.271.3793 apai@tweisel.com 212.271.3695
Phan Le 212.271.3425
Topher Orr 212.271.3659 Robert Walker 212.271.3826
Sven Eenmaa 212.271.3838
Sports and Lifestyle Brands
Pharmaceuticals: Specialty Computer Systems and Storage
Jim Duffy Annabel Samimy
jduffy@tweisel.com 415.364.5974 asamimy@tweisel.com 212.271.3823 Doug Reid, CFA
dreid@tweisel.com 212.271.3841
Andrew Burns, CFA 720.479.2441 Aaron Mishel 212.271.3829
Paramveer Singh 212.271.3809
Energy Internet, Media and Telecom Electronic Supply Chain
Internet Services Matt Sheerin
Alternative Energy msheerin@tweisel.com 212.271.3753
Jeff Osborne Jordan Rohan
jrohan@tweisel.com 212.271.3765 Paramveer Singh 212.271.3809
josborne@tweisel.com 212.271.3577
Scott Reynolds 212.271.3429 Information & Financial Technology Services
Media & Entertainment
David Grossman
Dilip Warrier Ben Mogil dgrossman@tweisel.com 415.364.2541
dwarrier@tweisel.com 415.364.2983 bmogil@tweisel.com 416.815.3078
Melissa Moran, CFA 415.364.2586
Thomas Daniels 415.364.2535 Benjamin Shapiro 416.815.3106
Semiconductors: Analog & Mixed Signal
Metals and Mining Tore Svanberg
Energy Equipment and Services
tsvanberg@tweisel.com 415.364.7461
Dana Benner, CFA Base Metals and Uranium
dbenner@tweisel.com 403.268.9168 Evan Wang 415.364.7463
Simon Tonkin
stonkin@tweisel.com 416.815.3115 Semiconductors: Processors & Components
International Oil & Gas
Adam Kepecs 416.815.3127 Kevin Cassidy
David Dudlyke
kcassidy@tweisel.com 212.271.3864
ddudlyke@tweisel.com +44 207.877.4410 Base Metals: Copper and Moly Neilay Mehta, CFA 212.271.3794
Quinn Sievewright +44 207.877.4412 George Topping
gtopping@tweisel.com 416.815.3113 Software: Applications
Thomas Martin Blair Abernethy, CFA
thomas.martin@tweisel.com +44 207.877.4411 Basic Materials babernethy@tweisel.com 416.815.3050
Horst Hueniken, CFA
Oil & Gas Exploration and Production horst.hueniken@tweisel.com 416.815.1633 Software: Applications & Communications
Kurt Molnar Fadi Benjamin 416.815.3128 Tom Roderick
kmolnar@tweisel.com 403.268.9156 troderick@tweisel.com 415.364.5952
Gold & Precious Metals Chris Koh, CFA 415.364.2655
Michael Zuk 403.268.9158
Heather Douglas, CFA Gur Talpaz 415.364.2608
Michael Scialla hdouglas@tweisel.com 416.815.3108
mscialla@tweisel.com 720.479.2435 Software: Infrastructure
Josh Wolfson 416.815.3080
Daniel Guffey 720.479.2437 Dave Hove 416.815.1548 Tim Klasell
tklasell@tweisel.com 415.364.2949
Healthcare Dormain Geyer 415.364.2807
Stephen Hagan 212.271.3833
Biotechnology
Stephen Willey
swilley@tweisel.com 212.271.3620
Thomas Weisel Partners LLC • One Montgomery Street • San Francisco CA 94104 • tel 415.364.2500 • fax 415.364.2695 • www.tweisel.com

NiMin - Weisel Initiation 7-1-10

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

NiMin - Weisel Initiation 7-1-10

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Equity Research

Nimin Energy Corporation NNN-T (06/30/10): $1.05 USD

Figure 1: Nimin Energy Operations

Source: © Nimin Energy Corp., 2010; reprinted with permission

Figure 2: 2009 Results And 2010E Capex

2009 Production By Field 2009 Proved Reserves 2010E Capex

Underdeveloped Oil Properties To Drive Near-Term Growth

Figure 3: Recovery Factors

July 1, 2010 Thomas Weisel Partners LLC

Attractive Valuation, In Our View

Figure 4: NAV Analysis

NiMin Energy Unproved Potential

Source: Company reports and Thomas Weisel Partners LLC estimates

July 1, 2010 Thomas Weisel Partners LLC

Oil And Natural Gas Price Volatility

Large Percentage Of Undeveloped Reserves

Micro Cap Company With Strong Competition

July 1, 2010 Thomas Weisel Partners LLC

Reverse Merger With Legacy Spawns Nimin Energy

July 1, 2010 Thomas Weisel Partners LLC

Clarence Cottman, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board

Dr. Sven Hagen, President

Rick McGee, Chief Operating Officer

Jonathan Wimbish, Chief Financial Officer

July 1, 2010 Thomas Weisel Partners LLC

OIL AND GAS PROPERTIES

Big Horn Basin

Figure 5: Bighorn Basin Properties

Source: © Nimin Energy Corp., 2010; reprinted with permission

Ferguson Ranch Field

Figure 6: Spring Creek Field Production

Spring Creek Production

Avg. Well Count

An assumed drilling density of 9 acres/well at Ferguson Ranch implies 23 additional locations

July 1, 2010 Thomas Weisel Partners LLC

Figure 7: Marathon Oil Infill Well Outperformance

July 1, 2010 Thomas Weisel Partners LLC

Ferguson Ranch Well Economics

Figure 8: Ferguson Ranch

WTI Oil Price ($/MMBTU)

Source: Thomas Weisel Partners LLC estimates

Other Bighorn Fields

July 1, 2010 Thomas Weisel Partners LLC

Bighorn Basin Probable Reserve Potential

San Joaquin Basin

July 1, 2010 Thomas Weisel Partners LLC

Figure 9: San Joaquin Basin Strat-section

Source: Utah Department of Natural Resources

Pleito Creek Field

Figure 10: San Joaquin Basin

Source: © Nimin Energy Corp., 2010; reprinted with permission

The CMD Process

Pleito Creek Development Plans

Figure 11: Pleito Creek Field

Source: © Nimin Energy Corp., 2010; reprinted with permission

Potential CMD Economics

Broader CMD Potential

July 1, 2010 Thomas Weisel Partners LLC

Figure 12: Balance Sheet

July 1, 2010 Thomas Weisel Partners LLC

Operating Results and Estimates - Nimin Energy Corp

July 1, 2010 Thomas Weisel Partners LLC

Total 1,740,000 0 10,440,000 1,339,800 0 8,039 $69.60 $0.00 93,250,080 0