Building in LNG and Methanol15th Asia Upstream Conference: April 21st - 22nd, 2010Jürgen Hendrich, Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer

DisclaimerThis presentation includes certain forward-looking

statements that have been based on current expectations

about future acts, events and circumstances. These

forward-looking statements are, however, subject to risks,

uncertainties and assumptions that could cause those acts,

events and circumstances to differ materially from the

expectations described in such forward-looking statements.

These factors include, among other things, commercial and

other risks associated with estimation of potential

hydrocarbon resources, the meeting of objectives and other

investment considerations, as well as other matters not yet

known to the Company or not currently considered material

by the Company.

MEO Australia accepts no responsibility to update any

person regarding any error or omission or change in the

information in this presentation or any other information

made available to a person or any obligation to furnish the

person with further information.

at 26:34 S

0 500 km

Carnarvon Basin

Existing Building

16.3 Mtpa 14.3 Mtpa

Planned

~38 Mtpa

Browse Basin

Existing Building

Nil Nil

Planned

~18 Mtpa

Bonaparte Basin

Existing Building

3.5 Mtpa Nil

Planned

~ 10 Mtpa

Onshore Queensland - CSG

Existing Building

Nil Nil

Planned

~12 Mtpa

Australian LNG provincesMEO operates in basins with existing LNG infrastructure

0255075

100125150

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Mtpa

Japan South Korea Taiwan

Other India China

Asian net gas imports

Source: BP Statistical Review 20090

10

20

30

40

50

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Mtpa

Rest of World China

Global Methanol Demand

Source: ICI & MMSA

Bonaparte & Browse Basins1 existing LNG project (3.5 Mtpa) – remoteness/quality issues

Darwin

Bayu Undan

Ichthys

Evans Shoal

Tassie Shoal Hub location

Heron

Blackwood

Darwin

Torosa

CruxFrigate Tern

Petrel

Blacktip

BrecknockCalliance

0 100 km

Joint

Petroleum

Development

Area

Barossa/Caldita

Source: Encom Gpinfo and public sources

Timor-Leste Abadi

NT/P68

NT/P68(relinquished)

Prelude(not shown)

GreaterSunrise

GDF Suez bought 60% of

Petrel/Tern/Frigate for US$370m

(US$0.31/Mcf)

Magellan buys 40% ofEvans shoal for A$200m

Poseidon(not shown)

Economic considerationsResource Value Enhancing Options

• Resource size

• Hydrocarbon liquids − condensate & LPG

• Contaminants − CO2, H2S, mercury

• Development costs − Water depth, reservoir quality

• Distance to processing − environmental issues

− political issues

− pipeline terrain

• Certainty − reservoir

− development concept

• Market for product

• Cooperative development?

• Accelerated liquids production?− eg Bayu-Undan liquids stripping

• Removal & sequestration - eg Gorgon CO2 sequestration

• Technology improvements

• Move the processing location?− resolve issues

− seek compromises (mutual benefits?)

− Avoid complex/high risk traverses

• Improve technical confidence − reservoir studies and appraisal drilling

− use proven development technology

• Diversify?

Bonaparte Basin Development DriversMEO gas discoveries have clear path to market

Project Discovery ProductionGas/LNG/MeOH

Distance Deep Dry Dirty Disputed

Bayu-Undan 1995 2001/2006

Blacktip 2001 2009/no LNG

Blackwood (MEO 100%)

2008 FID + 3.5 yrs

Heron (MEO 100%)

2008 FID + 3.5 yrs ? ?

Greater Sunrise 1975 ?

Petrel/Tern/Frigate

1969 ?

Evans Shoal 1988 ?

Barossa / Caldita 1973/2005 ?

• Disputed: - jurisdiction related complexities

NT/P68 (MEO 100%)Renewal Outline

Darwin

NT/P 48

JPDA 03-19

03-20NT/RL 2

NT/P 62

NT/P 63

NT/P 64

NT/P 61

NT/P 65

NT/P 68

NT/P 69NT/P 70

NT/P 72

NT/P 71

JPDA 06-101

S06-06

WA-403-P

WA-405-P

NT/P 73

Masela

NT/P 76

NT/P 80

NT/P 79

NT 08-3

W 08-1

NT 09-1

Blackwood 3D

Epenarra 3D over Heron Nth/Sth

NT/P68

Top Elang/Plover Reservoir

Contour Interval: 20 m

MEO gas discoveries (100%) & 3D seismicPermit renewal accepted, acreage award pending

Improved porosity suggested by seismic

Advanced seismic processing Acoustic impedance (AI) studies to predict reservoir sweet spots

Heron-2 porosity = 6%co-incides with low AI

Improved porosity suggested by seismic

Tassie Shoal – a natural hub locationSolves remoteness & gas quality (CO2 sequestered into methanol)

0 500m

ACP LNG Storage Tank

LNG Plant (3 mtpa)

Methanol Plant

(5,000 tpd stage 1)

Cooling

Water

Outlet

Gas Supply

Pipelines

Methanol Loading Buoy

PLEM

LNG Load out

N

0 100 km

Darwin

NT/P68 original

Abadi

Barossa

Tassie Shoal

Caldita

Evans Shoal

Greater Sunrise

Indonesia

Australia

JPDAHeron

Blackwood East

Blackwood

NT/P68

LNG Tank(170,000 m3)

Methanol Plant (5,000 tpd/1.75 Mtpa Stage 1 only)(For CO2 sequestration)MEO 50%, Air Products 50%

LNG Plant (3.0 Mtpa)MEO 100%

Accommodation and Control Platform (ACP)

Tassie Shoal Projects – Single ModulesEnvironmental approvals secured – pending gas supplies

Timor Sea LNG ProjectCombines two established designs

+

=

Air Products/Aker Kvaerner 1990’s Concept

Timor Sea LNG Plant – one moduleArup Concept Elevating (ACE) Platform (100m x 50m)

170,000 m3 LNG StorageCombines two proven technologies

+ =

Methanol plant on concrete GBSCombines two proven technologies

+ =

• Plant based on Davy Process Technology M5000 plant operating in Trinidad

• GBS builds on the experience from ExxonMobil’s Adriatic Re-gas terminal

Economic enhancementsMEO’s plan to enhance resource value

• Cooperative development?

• Accelerated liquids production?

• Economic disposal of contaminants

• Lower development costs

• Reduce distance to processing − resolve environmental issues

− seek compromises (mutual benefits?)

• Improve technical confidence − reservoir studies and appraisal drilling

− use proven technology

• Diversify Markets

• Tassie Shoal development hub

• Hub lowers threshold economics

• Sequestration into methanol− Sequestration revenue stream

• Single module facilities− Pre-fabricated and pre-commissioned

• Tassie Shoal development hub− environmental approvals in place

− willing to share infrastructure

• Advanced seismic processing − Acoustic impedance studies

− Tassie Shoal LNG and Methanol

• LNG and methanol products

• Plant costs savings driven by lower SE Asian construction costs

• Pipeline cost savings estimates are distance related

Estimated costs (US$M) Darwin LNG Tassie Shoal LNG Potential Savings

Plant Costs 1,549 (WorleyParsons est) 1,090 (WorleyParsons est) 459

Pipeline * 943 (WorleyParsons data) 288 (WorleyParsons data) 655

LNG Tank 300 (MEO est) 330 (Arup est) (30)

Loadout/Jetty 200 (MEO est) 277 (TORP est) (77)

Project Development &

Owners Costs (6.25%) 188 (same % as TSLNGP) 106 (Fluor/APCI/MEO est) 82

Total Project Cost $3,180m $2,091m $1,089m

* Based on pipeline from Greater Sunrise to Tassie Shoal vs Greater Sunrise to Darwin

Tassie Shoal saves >US$1bn in capexStudy compared similar land based LNG plant

Dampier

WA-360-P

0 50 km

East Artemis Prospect(~12 Tcf)

Io/Jansz(15 - 18 Tcf)

Perseus(11 Tcf)

Angel(2 Tcf)Pluto

Wheatstone

NWS Project (30 Tcf)Existing

16.3 Mtpa (5 trains)

Pluto Project (4.5 Tcf)Under Construction 4.3 Mtpa (1 train)

Expansion needs gas

Greater Gorgon Project (40 Tcf)Under Construction 10 Mtpa (2 trains)

Potential Expansion to 25 Mtpa (5 trains)

Barrow

Island

Wheatstone ProjectPlanned

8.6 Mtpa (2 trains)

Scarborough(8 - 10 Tcf)

Carnarvon Basin – THE LNG address!MEO’s acreage is located on trend with recent discoveries

Gorgon(15-18 Tcf)

WA-361-P

Carnarvon Basin Development DriversLocation, size & gas quality drives economics

Project CapacityMtpa

Discovered ProductionGas/LNG

Distance Dry Dirty Deep

NWS Gas Project 16.3 1971 1984/1989

Pluto I(in construction)

4.3 +2? x 4.3

2005 2010/20112013, 2014

Greater Gorgon (in construction)

10 +3 x 5

1981 2014

Wheatstone (in FEED – FID 2011)

10 2004 2016 ?

Artemis Prospect(MEO 20%)

? 2010? ?

Scarborough 6? 1979 ?

• Distance: - long distance from suitable processing site

• Deep: - significant water depth &/or reservoir depth

• Dry: - lack of significant hydrocarbon liquids

• Dirty: - presence of contaminants (e.g. CO2)

Base Calypso

Depth Map

Amplitude

Extract

Interpreted

gas-water contact

Interpreted

gas-water contact

Artemis Prospect: WA-360-P (MEO 20%+) Perseus Field – NWS JVInterpreted gas-water

contact

Published

outline of field

New 3D’s revealed ~12 Tcf* Artemis ProspectDHI conformable with structure – similar to Perseus field

• * Estimated mean prospective recoverable resource

• + Post farm-out of 50% interest to Petrobras, subject to regulatory approvals

• Estimated Geological Chance of Success (GCOS) = 32%

• Gas quality expected to be similar to Pluto & Wheatstone

• Multiple monetisation options

SummaryTailor the project to address the key development drivers

• Discovering gas in Australia is NOT the issue - monetising discovered gas IS

• Challenge paradigms - innovation does not automatically mean increased risks

• Consider alternative markets – LNG is not the only option

• Mitigate risks

− Look to nature for solutions

− Use existing/proven technology

− Comprehensive studies before significant capital expenditure

• Collaboration can build a bigger pie for all stakeholders

• Accelerating developments enhances value for all stakeholders

• Sequestration is multi-dimensional eg geo/bio/chemical (eg methanol)

• Tailor solutions to address the geo-circumstances (including geo-political)