Proposed La Repose Golf Estate

13 SEPTEMBER 2013: CITY OF CAPE TOWN, ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT

Sunbird Energy: Proposed Ibhubesi Gas Project

SUNBIRD ENERGY

PROPOSED IBHUBESI GAS PROJECT

NOTES OF MEETING HELD ON 13 SEPTEMBER 2013, 09H00 AT CITY OF CAPE TOWN OFFICES, ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, MILNERTON

PRESENT AND APOLOGIES: Please see the list of attendees and the attached attendance register in Attachment A.

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Jonathan Crowther (JC) thanked everyone for attending and thanked Morné Theron (MT) for organising the meeting. A round table introduction of all present then took place. An attendance list is attached.

2. PRESENTATION 2.1 JC put forward the agenda for the meeting and provided some background information on Sunbird Energy and the proposed Ibhubesi Gas Project (see attached presentation). JC then handed over to Anschen Friedrichs (AF) and Christian Seifart (CS) for their portions of the presentation. 2.2 AF introduced Sunbird Energy, including a brief history on the companies experience in the oil and gas industry to date. She then gave some background information on the Ibhubesi Gas Field itself (see attached presentation). 2.3 JC explained that diesel is currently being refined at Chevron and transported by truck to the Ankerlig Power Station where it is then converted to gas. He further explained that the project would allow gas to be transported directly to Ankerlig via a pipeline, thus eliminating the need for diesel to be transported to the power station. 2.4 DP described the various pipeline shore crossing options, touching on two different laydown methods and onshore route options (see attached presentation).

3. DISCUSSION 3.1 Derek Paul (DP) confirmed that the pipeline width was 16 in or 400 mm and that the pipeline would be buried at least 1.2 m below the surface. A servitude of between 20 to 30 m may be needed during the construction operation. The operating servitude would be much narrower and would simply need a small track or an existing road/fire break for monitoring purposes. The pipeline pressure would be 220 bar before being reduced to 40 bar at the onshore processing facility. The onshore processing facility is relatively small in scale (possibly equivalent to a double storey building in height) and would cover a total site area of approximately 1 ha.

The safety distance from the pipeline is based on various factors – the baseline risk case is that of 200 m safety distance on either side of the pipeline. This would be addressed as part of a risk assessment undertaken in the EIA. There would also be the need to consider the MHI requirements and to undertake a collaborate approach with the City of Cape Town (CCT).

3.2 David Allpass (DA) noted that the shallow depth Aquifer field at Silwerstroom Strand needs to be considered when defining the details of the onshore pipeline routing. DA indicated that he would forward the relevant GIS information to PRDW for inclusion in their updated report. They would also make themselves available to discuss potential routes through this area with PRDW.

3.3 The onshore pipeline routing would also pass through the Atlantis Aquifer system located further south. The impact on both aquifer systems would be addressed in the EIA. DA indicated that the EIA would need to consider a well point monitoring programme, to ensure that any groundwater contamination can be monitored.

3.4 Pat Titmus (PT) indicated that Silverstroom pipeline route may fall within the Witzand Conservation area and that there are currently plans for a Dassenberg to Coast Catchment Management initiative. From a biodiversity

1 Meeting Notes: 13 September 2013 Sunbird Energy: Proposed Ibhubesi Gas Project

perspective the R27 Road Reserve would be a better option than a green field route. Details on the planning initiatives for this area can be obtained from Colin November the responsible CCT regional planner.

3.5 The groundwater in the area is considered very aggressive to buried pipelines. Chevron has had major problems regarding cathodic protection of their crude oil pipeline. The Sunbird project will need to take this into account in its pipeline planning. Locating the gas pipeline near the Chevron oil pipeline could result in a major disaster.

3.6 The water treatment plant north of the Dassenberg Road should be avoided when routing the pipeline to the Ankerlig site. The southern portion of the Koeberg Power Station property is currently being considered by the CCT and Eskom for future stewardship under Cape Nature. This was part of the conditions of approval for the Eskom training centre. Also the area to the east of R27 and south of the Dassenberg Road is being considered for an offset area for the development of CBA areas in the Atlantis Industrial area.

3.7 CCT queried if there was any landing point preference at this stage. DP indicated that all three options are still being considered but that at this stage Dynefontein appeared to be the best. However, interaction was still needed with Eskom and NNR to discuss this alternative further. MT mentioned persons who were not present but with whom it would be necessary to interact. These included • Jan Fourie from Sport and Recreation • Cliff Dorse from Biodiversity Management • Kobus Coetzer from property ownership. CCT asked if an economic assessment would be included in the EIA. JC pointed out that an economic study would be one of 13 specialist studies that will be undertaken.

4. CLOSURE 4.1 JC explained that everyone who attended the meeting would be put on the Interested and Affected Parties (I&AP) project database and that they would be kept informed of all aspects of the project. He then thanked everyone for being present, and officially closed the meeting at approximately 11h00.

Sunbird/Meetings/Authority Meetings/Sunbird_CCT (ERM) Meeting_13 Sept 2013_Notes Rev 1_21.01.2014

2 Meeting Notes: 13 September 2013 Sunbird Energy: Proposed Ibhubesi Gas Project

ATTACHMENT A

LIST OF ATTENDEES AS PER ATTENDANCE REGISTER

NAME ORGANISATION

I&APs D Colenbrander CoCT: Coastal Management Amina Varachia CoCT: DRMC Ricky Lenders CoCT: DRMC DJ Allpass CoCT: Bulk Water Pat Titmuss CoCT: ERMD Marc Brodovicky CoCT: Water & Sanitation Sameera Parker CoCT: Bulk Water Morné Theron CoCT: ERMD Sonya Warnich-Stemmet CoCT: ERMD Johan Massyn CoCT: Transport Eduaan Albertyn CoCT: Water & Sanitation

CLIENT Anschen Friedrichs Sunbird Energy

EAP Jonathan Crowther CCA Environmental Jeremy Blood CCA Environmental Christian Seifart PRDW David Pitt PRDW Derek Paul PRDW

ATTACHMENT B

PRESENTATION

AGENDA

SUNBIRD ENERGY Welcome and Introduction - Jonathan Crowther (CCA) IBHUBESI GAS PROJECT, WESTERN AND NORTHERN CAPE Introduction to Sunbird Energy – Anschen Friedrichs (Sunbird)

Brief project description – Jonathan Crowther (CCA)

City of Cape Town Meeting Pipeline landing points and onshore routes – Derek Paul (PRDW) 13 September 2013 General discussion/Q&A

COMPOSITE GOOGLE EARTH MAP

Process Design - Onshore

Gas Heaters Gas Filter • Indirect fired • Particles only • 8MW • 3 x 33% PIPELINE LANDING POINTS AND ONSHORE PIPELINE

Pressure Reduction Metering PRDW PRESENTATION • Multiple valves • Custody • High noise transfer • Prover loop

5 SUNBIRD ENERGY BACKGROUND • South African focused natural gas explorer and developer • Gas portfolio covers:

¾ Ibhubesi Gas Project – the largest undeveloped gas field in South Africa ¾ Five onshore Coal Bed Methane project

KZWKZd WZ^Edd/KE ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϮϬϭϯ

sunbirdenergy.com.au Sunbird delivering value from its large scale gas reserves 2

CORPORATE STRUCTURE IBHUBESI GAS PROJECT (IGP)

Capital Structure Undiluted Diluted Board Largest undeveloped gas field in South Africa KuneneEnigma Petrotek Sunbird Kerwin Rana | Chairman with reserves of 540 Bcf (2P) Current Share Price $0.35 $0.35 Chemical Engineer with 17 years mining industry experience, previously Executive Head of New Business for De Beers. Managing Director, Umbono Capital • Sunbird – 76% interest - Subject to Cairn India No. of Shares Outstanding 112.5m 202.5m Kudu Will Barker | Managing Director DMR approval of transfer of title HRT HRTTullow HRT Market Capitalisation $39.4m $70.9m Geologist with 15 years experience in gas industry, previously GM LNG, Arrow BHP Energy & OM, New Guinea Energy HRT 1 Options 90.0m • PetroSA – 24%, South Africa’s national Andrew Leibovitch | Executive Director Energulf Ibhubesi Shell Cash $4.0m $24.5m Chartered Accountant, 20+ years in Corp Finance, previous GM roles at Woodside oil company & Western Mining South Enterprise Value $35.4m $46.4m • 5000km² Production Licence 2A Anadarko Marcus Gracey | Non-Executive Director 2B Africa Corporate Lawyer with extensive energy experience, currently Commercial & Island Point Legal Manager at New Standard Energy Thombo • 380km north of Cape Town 3B 4B3A/4A Offshore 3B/4B Sungu Management Team • 70km offshore, 250m of water Area South Nathan Rayner | Technical Director Africa Reservoir Engineer with extensive experience in production, reservoir and • 11 wells drilled, 7 gas discoveries Sasol petroleum engineering 2 Carla Mackay | Chief Financial Officer • 1,770km 3D seismic coverage Tullow Chartered Accountant, experience in SA banking and mining environments Cape Town including corporate finance, previously with Umbono/Old Mutual • $120m spent on exploration and 5/6 Sundil Ramluggan | Operations Manager appraisal since 2000 Geologist with significant experience in SA, previously with BHP and De Beers

Mark Balfour | General Counsel/Company Secretary • Recent high profile entries into area - Commercial and Resources Lawyer with 30 years’ experience in private legal Shell, Anadarko, Cairn India, Exxon and Orange Basin: Best estimate Prospective Resources of 22.5 Tcf practice, in-house counsel roles and executive directorships in both listed and unlisted companies BHP actively exploring gas in place, source: Petroleum Agency of South Africa

sunbirdenergy.com.au 3 sunbirdenergy.com.au 4

IGP: RESERVES RSA ENERGY MARKET

High value domestic energy market: Recoverable Recoverable Reserves independently certified by MHA • Dominated by base-load coal (85%) Petroleum Consultants in June 2013: Gas Condensate Volume Volume • Limited diesel peaking • 1P reserves of 210 Bcf (Bcf) (MMbbls) Based on 4 production tested wells Advancing two routes to market: • Proved Reserves (1P) 210 1.7 • Highest certainty of recovery (P90 - 90% • Eskom converting Ankerlig from diesel to gas, probability) Proved+Probable Reserves (2P) 540 4.3 diesel costs equate to US$22 – US$25 per Gj • DoE undertaking tender for 2.6GW gas fired IPPs Proved+Probable+Possible 915 7.3 by 2025, with Stage 1 (474MW) submitted in July 2P Reserves: Most Likely Recovery Reserves (3P) • 540 Bcf 2P Source: MHA • Recoverable gas volumes from the 7 Unrisked Gross Prospective Resources (Bcf) discovery wells (P50 - 50% probability) Reservoirs Low Best High Extensive Exploration Upside: Sequence 14 4,360 6,369 9,082 • High historical success rate, 7 discoveries (outside 3D) from 11 wells • Over 8 Tcf of Prospective Resource within Sequence 15 1,189 1,702 2,324 drilling targets defined by 3D/2D seismic Kudu Sand 106 286 628

TOTAL 5,655 8,357 12,034

Source: Forest Oil Corp

sunbirdenergy.com.au 5 sunbirdenergy.com.au 6 DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT IGP: U.S. TDA

Independent studies demonstrate viability of development: Ibhubesi Funding Package • The U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) 2A, Ibhubesi granted Sunbird an A$800,000 funding package, in • Total production volume - 540 Bcf (2P reserves) Gas Project August 2013 • Supply profile - 28.3 Bcf/year (average 80 MMscfd) 15 year • The funds will be used to complete the Field Island Point plateau Development Plan (FDP) for Ibhubesi with MHA • Sales point – Eskom’s Ankerlig Power Plant, Atlantis or IPP • The grant is a strong validation of the regional importance of Ibhubesi to the South African energy at Island Point / Saldanha 400KM equation Export Pipeline

• Field Development Plan: IPP Option – new build 474MW gas- “The project supports both President Obama’s Climate Action fired power station • Phase 1: 5 production wells tied to offshore facility Plan and South Africa’s Integrated Resource Plan 2010, which and 400km offshore export pipeline (Capex $1.4 calls for the expansion of gas-fired power generation from 2% billion) to 11% of the total supply by 2030,” said U.S. Charge d’Affaires for South Africa Catherine Hill-Herndon. • Phase 2: Further 5 production wells tied to existing Saldanha facilities (Capex $400 million) Onshore Receiving Station $7 Billion - Power Africa Initiative

Ankerlig Conversion - Atlantis • In July President Barack Obama visited South Africa and • Based on gas price of US$12-18/Gj, development of 1,300MW turbine power Ibhubesi is economically attractive and meets investment plant n diesel announced the “Power Africa” initiative Cape Town criteria for project financing 100 • US government has committed $7 billion over the next Km five for clean energy projects in sub-Saharan Africa

sunbirdenergy.com.au 7 sunbirdenergy.com.au 8

NATIONAL BENEFITS MILESTONES / NEWS FLOW A local energy supply in the west that will assist it in meeting its Ibhubesi Gas Project growing energy needs, improve its energy security, alleviate power shortages, reduce line losses and provide numerous other Reserves Certification June 2013 䘠 benefits. Independent Feasibility Study of Phase 1 Development June 2013 䘠 • SIP 5 Project: Presidential • Training & Development: Field Development Plan and Basis of Design December 2013 Infrastructure Coordinating commitment to development of Commission as a SIP5 project. local skills and enterprise. Gas Marketing Agreements By December 2013 • Foreign Direct Investment: of • Reduction of Carbon Emissions: Funding/Partnering Agreements By December 2013 R20-40 billion directly reduce CO² emissions by 20 million tonnes • Electricity Generation: 500 - Commencement of FEED 1Q 2014 2,000MW pa of cleaner • Significant Existing BEE/RSA electricity Participation: BEE groups hold (indirectly) 27% of IGP and state • Government Revenue: Front End participation (PetroSA) is Concept Select / Royalties, corporate tax, payroll currently 24%. Ibhubesi Engineering & Project Execution taxes and state (PetroSA) Basis of Design participation. • Rand-Based Energy Pricing: Design ability to price proportion of gas • Industry Participation: supply in Rand contractors and service providers. • Balance of Trade Benefits: reduction deficit from fuel H2 2013 VAR 2014 2015 • Downstream Industry Creation: imports. FID create industry onshore • Security of Supply: reduction in • Upstream Industry Creation: reliance on foreign energy CBM opens the west coast to a new supply. industry. Mopane Drilling Results 3Q & 4Q 2013 • Job Creation: substantial direct and indirect jobs CBM Contingent Resource 4Q 2013

sunbirdenergy.com.au 9 sunbirdenergy.com.au 10

CONTACT DISCLAIMER

Disclaimer This presentation (Presentation) has been prepared by Sunbird Energy Ltd (Sunbird). This Presentation is not a prospectus or a product disclosure statement under the Corporations SUNBIRD ENERGY LTD Act and has not been, nor is it required to be, lodged with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). Nothing in this Presentation should be considered as a solicitation, offer or invitation in any place where, or to any person to whom, it would not be lawful to make such an offer or invitation. www.sunbirdenergy.com.au Certain statements contained in this presentation, including information as to the future financial or operating performance of Sunbird and its projects, are forward-looking statements. Such forward-looking statements: • are necessarily based upon a number of estimates and assumptions that, while considered reasonable by Sunbird, are inherently subject to significant technical, business, economic, competitive, political and social uncertainties and contingencies; • involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause actual events or results to differ materially from estimated or anticipated events or results reflected in such forward-looking statements; and Will Barker • may include, among other things, statements regarding targets, estimates and assumptions in respect of production and prices, operating costs and results, capital expenditures, reserves and resources and anticipated flow rates, and are or may be based on assumptions and estimates related to future technical, economic, market, political, social and Managing Director other conditions.

[email protected] Ibhubesi Gas Project Sunbird has executed an agreement to acquire a 76% stake in the IGP (Block 2A) from Forest Oil Corporation and The Anschutz Overseas Corporation which will give Sunbird the right +61 8 9463 3260 to develop and operate the IGP, subject to approval of a transfer of title from the South African Department of Mineral Resources.

Forward Looking Statement Sunbird disclaims any intent or obligation to update publicly any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or results or otherwise. The words “believe”, “expect”, “anticipate”, “indicate”, “contemplate”, “target”, “plan”, “intends”, “continue”, “budget”, “estimate”, “may”, “will”, “schedule”, “potential”, “opportunity” and similar expressions identify forward-looking statements. All forward-looking statements made in this presentation are qualified by the foregoing cautionary statements. Investors are cautioned that forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and accordingly investors are cautioned not to put undue reliance on forward-looking statements due to the inherent uncertainty therein. No representation or warranty is or will be made by any person (including Sunbird and its officers, directors, employees, advisers and agents) in relation to the accuracy or completeness of all or part of this document, or any constituent or associated presentation, information or material (collectively, the Information), or the accuracy, likelihood of achievement or reasonableness of any projections, prospects or returns contained in, or implied by, the Information or any part of it. The Information includes information derived Production testing of the A-K2 well Ibhubesi Gas Field in 2000 from third party sources that has not necessarily been independently verified. The reserves and contingent resource estimates used in this announcement were compiled by Tim Hower of MHA Petroleum Consultants LLC and are consistent with the definitions of proved, probable, and possible hydrocarbon reserves and resources that appear in the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) Listing Rules. Mr Hower is qualified in accordance with the requirements of ASX listing rule 5.11 and has consented to the use of the reserves and resource figures in the form and context in which they appear in this announcement. Subject to any obligations under applicable laws, regulations or securities exchange listing rules, Sunbird disclaims any obligation or undertaking to release any updates or revisions to the Information to reflect any change in expectations or assumptions. Nothing contained in the Information constitutes investment, legal, tax or other advice. The Information does not take into account the investment objectives, financial situation or particular needs of any recipient. Before making an investment decision, each recipient of the Information should make its own assessment and take independent professional advice in relation to the Information and any action taken on the basis of the Information.

sunbirdenergy.com.au 11 sunbirdenergy.com.au 12

26 SEPTEMBER 2013: ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED

Sunbird Energy: Proposed Ibhubesi Gas Project

SUNBIRD ENERGY

PROPOSED IBHUBESI GAS PROJECT

NOTES OF MEETING HELD ON 26 SEPTEMBER 2013, 12H00 AT ESKOM OFFICES, MELKBOSSTRAND

PRESENT AND APOLOGIES: The list of attendees is provided in Attachment A.

1. INTRODUCTION Jonathan Crowther (JC) introduced Sunbird and its consultants and thanked the Eskom for meeting with the team regarding the Ibhubesi Gas Project. All attendees introduced themselves.

2. PRESENTATION 2.1 JC presented the proposed agenda for the meeting and then provided some background information regarding Sunbird Energy and the proposed Ibhubesi Gas Project (see presentation in Attachment B). JC explained that the Ibhubesi Gas Field has an existing production right for the extraction of gas and for processing this in the Northern Cape. He indicated that Sunbird we now proposing to bring the gas to the Western Cape with Eskom’s Ankerlig Power station being the anticipated end user of the gas. 2.2 Derek Paul (PD) then described the proposed landing points and the routes of the proposed onshore pipeline alternatives. He indicated that the landing points that are being considered at this stage are at Grotto Bay, Silwerstroom Strand and at Duynefontein (across the Koeberg Nuclear Power Station site roughly midway between the Duynefontein residential area and the power station). 3. DISCUSSION 3.1 Eskom asked what the duration of the anticipated development period was and whether the pipeline would cross under their power lines. RM indicated that the initial period was expected to be six years based on P1 reserves. With further drilling it was expected that the period could be expanded substantially. The pipeline would have to cross under Eskom power lines for the Duynefontein alternative.

3.2 Johan Austin (JA) asked what the pipeline was made of. David Pitt (DP) responded that the anticipated pipeline would be a 16” inch carbon steel pipe. The design of the pipeline would be covered under B 318 – Codes for Transmission.

3.3 JA asked how the performance of the pipeline is monitored. DP stated that a standard practise of pigging is used to ensure the integrity of a gas pipeline.

3.4 JA raised the issue of magnetic flux leakage from the pipeline and the implications this could have for the footings of their pylons. He pointed out that imposed currents could accelerate corrosion of their footings. Careful consideration would have to be given to cathodic protection of the footings. DP stated that these were key considerations that the design engineers would have to address.

3.5 JA also asked about the specific failure mechanism of the gas pipeline. Was this from cracks or wear and tear? What were the external threats from 3rd parties? DP pointed out that wear and tear on a gas pipeline is expected to be low and the likelihood of cracks would be very small. He stated that the only likely concern is from a 3rd party, but this is likely to be small as it would require excavation before the pipeline is reached.

3.6 JA noted that Eskom is proposing a new power line link between Ankerlig and Omega. Sunbird would thus have to take cognizance of the future powerline route.

1 Meeting Notes: 26 September 2013 Sunbird Energy: Proposed Ibhubesi Gas Project

3.7 JA asked which authority would be responsible for ensuring continued monitoring of the pipeline. Sunbird would need to look at the safety case, insurance and an Integrity Management System. DP stated the pipeline would have to comply with the HAZMID requirements of the Department of Labour.

3.8 JA queried whether failure of the pipeline would affect nuclear risk. Reference was made to ASME 3 (American Society Mechanical Engineers Standards) for nuclear facility design. DP indicated that this was something that they would have to consider in the engineering design.

3.9 JA noted that the pipeline pressure was high and that failure could result from a small diameter leak or a rupture which could lead to a catastrophic event. DP indicated that an isolation value would ensure that the onshore pipeline was separated from the 400 km offshore pipeline. Thus the size of any failure event would be in proportion to the volume of gas within the onshore pipeline.

3.10 JA raised a further issue related to what consideration seismic events had been given in the design. Burying the pipeline could affect the ability of the pipeline to move in the case of a seismic event. Could the pipeline be affected by liquifaction? Koeberg has a 0.3G design that can withstand a seismic event of 8 on the Richter Scale with a probability of occurrence of 10-6. DP noted these points and indicated that the risk of a pipeline failure is likely to be much less than a nuclear risk. There is some degree of flexibility of a pipeline – thus it would be able to move to a certain extent if there was a seismic event.

3.11 JA asked what would happen to Ankerlig if the gas supply was cut-off. RM responded by pointing out that the 400 km pipeline acts as a storage facility when Ankerlig is not generating power. Thus there is always additional volume in the pipeline over and above what is required. Thus if there was a supply problem from the offshore facility there would still be some supply? Sunbird however would have to consider this issue in its discussions with Eskom.

3.12 Eskom asked whether City planning approval would be needed in terms of LUPO. If this was the case this could possibly result in the project being taken off the table. JC responded that he did not believe any land use change was needed and thus no application to the CCT was required for a land-use change. The normal approach is simply to register a pipeline servitude over the properties the pipeline would cross.

3.13 Anita Williams (AW) stated that a detailed risk assessment would be required. Sunbird would need to look at the consequence of the proposed activity. There are three broad options: that this is not an issue; that the pipeline is built to withstand any event; or full mitigation is included. The risk assessment needs to look at distance and consequence. JC responded that a full risk assessment would be undertaken as part of the specialist assessment.

3.14 Some discussion was held regarding the way forward. It was agreed that Eskom would provide Sunbird with contact details of the person with whom they should contact. It was agreed that contact would happen by the following week.

3.15 Mention was made of the Nuclear Regulatory Committee – USA – with regards to a high level study regarding risk associated with nuclear power stations.

4. CLOSURE

4.4 JC thanked Eskom for meeting with Sunbird and CCA and closed the meeting at approximately 14h15

Sunbird/Meetings/Authority Meetings/Sunbird_Eskom Meeting_26 Spt 2013_Notes Rev 1 _28 Feb 14

2 Meeting Notes: 26 September 2013 Sunbird Energy: Proposed Ibhubesi Gas Project

ATTACHMENT A

LIST OF ATTENDEES AS PER ATTENDANCE REGISTER

NAME ORGANISATION

I&APs Jurina Le Roux Eskom: Nuclear Sites Anita Williams Eskom: Nuclear Sites Deon Jeanes Eskom: Nuclear Support Johan Austin Eskom: Nuclear Engineering I Sekoko Eskom M Gillard Eskom

Proponent Richard Monjuie Sunbird

Engineers Christian Seifart PRDW David Pitt PRDW Derek Paul PRDW

EAP Jonathan Crowther CCA Environmental

ATTACHMENT B

PRESENTATION

AGENDA

SUNBIRD ENERGY Welcome and Introduction - Jonathan Crowther (CCA) IBHUBESI GAS PROJECT, WESTERN AND NORTHERN CAPE Introduction to Sunbird Energy – Richard Montjoie (Sunbird)

Brief project description – Jonathan Crowther (CCA)

Eskom Meeting Pipeline landing points and onshore routes – Derek Paul/Chris Seifart 26 September 2013 (PRDW)

General discussion/Q&A

COMPOSITE GOOGLE EARTH MAP

Process Design - Onshore

Gas Heaters Gas Filter • Indirect fired • Particles only • 8MW • 3 x 33% PIPELINE LANDING POINTS AND ONSHORE PIPELINE

Pressure Reduction Metering PRDW PRESENTATION • Multiple valves • Custody • High noise transfer • Prover loop SHORE-CROSSING SITES DUYNEFONTEIN SHORE AND ONSHORE ROUTING TO CROSSING SITE ANKERLIG POWER STATION

SILWERSTROOM STRAND GROTTO BAY SHORE SHORE CROSSING SITE CROSSING SITE

APPROACH TO ANKERLIG GAS PROCESSING PLANT POWER STATION SITES AT ANKERLIG POWER STATION DUYNEFTONEIN SHORE DUYNEFONTEIN ONSHORE CROSSING – ZOOMED IN ROUTING THROUGH ESKOM PROPERTY

CROSSING BETWEEN DUYNEFONTEIN ONSHORE ROUTING AND “OTTO DU PLESSIS DRIVE”

26 SEPTEMBER 2013: NATIONAL NUCLEAR REGULATOR

Sunbird Energy: Proposed Ibhubesi Gas Project

SUNBIRD ENERGY

PROPOSED IBHUBESI GAS PROJECT

NOTES OF MEETING HELD ON 26 SEPTEMBER 2013, 10H00 AT NATIONAL NUCLEAR REGULATOR OFFICES, MELKBOSSTRAND

PRESENT AND APOLOGIES: The list of attendees is provided in Attachment A.

1. INTRODUCTION Jonathan Crowther (JC) introduced Sunbird and its consultants and thanked the National Nuclear Regulator for meeting with the team regarding the Ibhubesi Gas Project. Tim Hill (TH) and Ubert Coetzee (UC) then introduced themselves.

3. DISCUSSION 3.1 TH asked what the pipeline pressure would be. Richard Montjoie (RM) responded that the pressure in the pipeline would be approximately 200 bar.

3.2 TH asked for more detail about the shore crossing sites. CS responded that the Grotto Bay crossing would require what is referred to as directional drilling where the pipeline would be drilled from the shore, underneath the shoreline and be linked to the offshore pipeline some distance from the shore. The Silwerstroom Strand the Duynefontein crossing would probably use a system that is referred to as trenching. In this case the beach and dune crossing would be excavated and the pipeline laid with sufficient depth below the beach level that it would not be affected by beach erosion.

3.3 TH asked for some detail regarding the joining of the pipeline sections and whether the pipeline would be buried. CS responded that the pipeline lengths would be welded together and then concrete lined for added protection. The onshore pipeline would be buried at approximately 1.5 m below ground level.

3.4 TH asked if the pipeline would be “isolated” in terms of possible induced currents from power lines? CS indicated that isolation would be considered in the pipeline design.

3.5 JC asked NNR to explain what the NNR Regulation refers to as “place bound” and would a pipeline as proposed fall within this definition. TH that place bound refers to supporting the functions of the Koeberg nuclear power station. For example, if Ankerlig is essential to Koeberg then this could be considered as place bound.

1 Meeting Notes: 26 September 2013 Sunbird Energy: Proposed Ibhubesi Gas Project

3.6 TH also indicated that what also needs to be considered is whether the pipeline would need to comply with a development application process, i.e. would the project require an application to the City of Cape Town (CCT) for a change in land-use or additional rights for the pipeline. Should a landuse change be required then the NNR Act may be applicable.

3.7 TH noted that the project would have to be considered in terms of the Koeberg Emergency Evacuation plan and safety of the plant. RM responded that the safety of the Koeberg power station was a key issue that would have to be considered.

3.8 UC asked about the likely effects of a pipeline rupture. CS indicated that a rupture on its own was highly unlikely as the pipeline is continually checked and monitored. A rupture could result from say damage caused by a digging machine. A rupture would result in the leakage of methane gas. The amount gas that would leak out is dependent on the location of the nearest cut-off valve – this would be near the shore crossing. Thus the volume of gas that could leak out would be restricted to the onshore pipeline length and not the whole pipeline.

3.9 TH pointed out that there is a lot of sensitivity regarding risk since the Fukushima event in Japan. This could have effects on evacuation. He was also concerned about the possible increase of risk where the pipeline crosses the R27 and Eskom power lines. RM noted this issue and that Sunbird would look at engineering design in order to reduce risk.

3.10 TH raised the issue of public image – that the public could see this as another risk source. As such they may raise strong objection to the pipeline being located near the power station and northern section of Duynefontein. A gas pipeline may also add to seismic “loading” of the power station which is currently 0.3 G. RM indicated that their engineers would have to look at this issue.

3.11 RM noted that the NNR Regulations are still in draft form and that control of the restricted areas around the power station is managed by CCT. TH indicated that should the pipeline pass though the Koeberg site (as part of the nuclear “facility”) it would be necessary for Eskom to submit a revised Site Safety Report to NNR for acceptance. This report would require a safety analysis of the proposed pipeline in relation to the nuclear power station. RM noted the possible requirement for a compliance safety process.

3.12 TH pointed out the relevant legislative document in this regard is “NNR 2013, Monitoring and Control of Development in the Emergency Planning Zone of Koeberg”.

4. CLOSURE

4.1 JC thanked NNR for their time and for hosting the meeting. The meeting closed at approximately 11h30

Sunbird/Meetings/Authority Meetings/Drafts/Notes that still need to be written by JC/NNR Meeting_26 Sep 2013_Notes Rev 0 _28 Feb14

2 Meeting Notes: 26 September 2013 Sunbird Energy: Proposed Ibhubesi Gas Project

ATTACHMENT A

LIST OF ATTENDEES AS PER ATTENDANCE REGISTER

NAME ORGANISATION

National Nuclear Regulator Tim Hill NNR Ubert Coetzee NNR

Proponent Richard Montjoie Sunbird

Engineer

Christian Seifart PRDW

EAP Jonathan Crowther CCA Environmental

ATTACHMENT B

PRESENTATION

AGENDA

SUNBIRD ENERGY Welcome and Introduction - Jonathan Crowther (CCA) IBHUBESI GAS PROJECT, WESTERN AND NORTHERN CAPE Introduction to Sunbird Energy – Richard Montjoie (Sunbird)

Brief project description – Jonathan Crowther (CCA)

NNR Meeting Pipeline landing points and onshore routes – Derek Paul/Chris Seifart 26 September 2013 (PRDW)

General discussion/Q&A

COMPOSITE GOOGLE EARTH MAP

Process Design - Onshore

Gas Heaters Gas Filter • Indirect fired • Particles only • 8MW • 3 x 33% PIPELINE LANDING POINTS AND ONSHORE PIPELINE

SILWERSTROOM STRAND GROTTO BAY SHORE SHORE CROSSING SITE CROSSING SITE

APPROACH TO ANKERLIG GAS PROCESSING PLANT POWER STATION SITES AT ANKERLIG POWER STATION

20 NOVEMBER 2013: CITY OF CAPE TOWN, PROPERTY MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT

Sunbird Energy: Proposed Ibhubesi Gas Project

SUNBIRD ENERGY

PROPOSED IBHUBESI GAS PROJECT

NOTES OF MEETING HELD ON 20 NOVEMBER 2013, 09H30 AT CITY OF CAPE TOWN, PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, GOODWOOD

PRESENT AND APOLOGIES: Please see the list of attendees and the attached attendance register in Attachment A.

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Jonathan Crowther (JC) thanked everyone for attending the meeting. An attendance list is attached

1.2 JC explained that CCA Environmental (CCA) has been appointed as the Environmental Consultant for the project, after which he presented the agenda for the meeting. 1.3 Kobus Coetzer (KC) introduced himself as being the regional head for the Department of Property Management of the City of Cape Town. 1.4 JC explained that Sunbird and CCA had already met with Morné Theron and a number of other City officials regarding the proposed project and that the Background Information Document (BID) is currently being compiled. 1.5 KC explained that as part of the process followed by the Department of Property Management, an application for servitudes would have to be submitted, and that all governmental departments would need to be on board. 1.6 JC agreed that City support is required for the proposed pipeline and that the feedback from all of the departments with which they have met thus far has been positive.

2. PRESENTATION 2.1 Anschen Friedrichs (AF) of Sunbird Energy then provided a brief introduction to Sunbird Energy. She also indicated the location and extent of the previous exploration carried out in Block 2A, as well as that of the proposed project. She also gave a brief overview of the South African energy market and how the proposed project would be beneficial to the country (see attached presentation). 2.2 KC commented on the presentation saying that it was very interesting as he was not aware of what was going on behind the scenes in the South African Energy market. 2.3 This was followed by JC providing a broad description of the proposed project, which included a brief description of the three possible pipeline landing points and routes (see attached presentation). 2.4 Christian Seifart (CS) of PRDW then provided a detailed description of the proposed pipeline onshore landing points and pipeline routes.

3. DISCUSSION 3.1 CS asked what the implications of registering new servitudes for the proposed project would be. He questioned whether or not the land use of the area over which the servitude would be required would have to be changed. If the pipeline was to run beneath agricultural land for example, he questioned whether the land use of that area would remain agricultural, or if it would need to be changed. KC responded to the question by stating that a formal application for any and all new servitudes required would have to be submitted to the department. The application would have to include diagrams of the various pipeline route options. He stated that they would then undertake a technical investigation, and would have a meeting with all relevant branches to determine which route options they prefer.

3.2 JC stated that the proposed project had already been initiated and registered and that the team had already interacted with a number of the relevant local authorities, including Pat Titmuss. He also explained that once all the necessary documents had been submitted, the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) would approve one preferred option, after which Property Management would be approached to register the necessary servitude. JC explained that although theoretically the project should result in a decrease in electricity prices, it might only play a part in the total Eskom price determination. KC responded in saying that no LUPO application would be required for registering a servitude, and thus a change in land use would not be required. He also stated that compensation for the relevant landowners would be expected, the amount of which would vary according to the land use.

1 Meeting Notes: 20 November 2013 Sunbird Energy: Proposed Ibhubesi Gas Project

CS then mentioned that it would still be possible to use the land above the proposed pipeline for agricultural activities and that the pipeline could be laid at a greater depth if need be. KC stated that on face value the proposed project had his support as the country is in desperate need of additional energy sources. He also stated that Property Management would not be a stumbling block in the process.

3.3 CS then posed a question to KC regarding the Silwerstroomstrand option for the routing of the pipeline and what he thought the implications would be from a Property Management point of view for laying the pipeline beneath the existing resort. He stated that the resort would need to be closed for a period of 3 to 6 months, but that they would not schedule construction over the busy holiday season. He also stated that for the onshore pipeline, the equipment needed for construction is fairly small. KC responded by saying that it is difficult for him to comment as the resort falls under a different directorate. He stated that if everything was restored to its original condition post construction, and some sort of compensation was offered, he didn’t think it would be a problem. He stated that in his opinion, the only problem with this option would be from an environmental perspective. CS reiterated that if the pipeline were to run beneath the resort, a portion of it would need to run beneath an ablution block. He questioned that if it were rebuilt on completion of the proposed project, to the same or better standard as before, whether it would still pose any problems from a Property Management point of view. KC responded by saying that Sunbird Energy or CCA would need to contact amenities with regards to this.

3.4 JC mentioned that Silwerstroomstrand is closer to the end user than Grotto Bay, therefore in terms of the vegetation impact it would be a better option.

3.5 KC posed a question to CS regarding the risk contour and how it will be calculated for the various route options. CS responded by saying that risk is calculated by multiplying probability by consequence, but that the risk factor for each option is still to be calculated. CS stated that the proposed pipeline that would run beneath the resort would contain gas at a high pressure as there is no physical space for a receiving facility between the resort and the beach. JC mentioned that the pipeline is proposed to run along the northern boundary of the resort. He indicated that perhaps the campsites that are situated in this vicinity may need to be located elsewhere so that they are not above the pipeline. He suggested that the area rather be used for recreational purposes post construction.

3.6 Pieter Strumpher (PS) then stated that there has been a request from the public for the expansion of the resort and for additional campsites. CS explained that they would not be able to expand to the north due to a wetland / river on the northern edge. CS explained that all site specific risks will be considered. He stated that all locations would have a valve on the beach for safety purposes. JC then added that in particularly sensitive receiving environments, it would be possible to install more than one pressure control valve to reduce the area that would be negatively affected should an issue arise.

4. CLOSURE 4.1 KC stated that from a Property Management point of view, there shouldn’t be any real issues with the proposed project. Both KC and PS state that they will facilitate the project where they can. 4.2 KC stated that the meeting was an eye opener and that we should not hesitate to contact him with any questions. 4.3 JC stated that CCA would compile notes of the meeting and these would be included in the scoping report. 4.4 JC thanked Property Management for meeting with Sunbird and CCA and closed the meeting at approximately 10h40

Sunbird/Meetings/Authority Meetings/Sunbird_CCT Meeting_20 Nov2013_Notes Rev 1_22.01.2014

2 Meeting Notes: 20 November 2013 Sunbird Energy: Proposed Ibhubesi Gas Project

ATTACHMENT A

LIST OF ATTENDEES AS PER ATTENDANCE REGISTER

NAME ORGANISATION

I&APs Pieter Strumpher CoCT: Property Management Kobus Coetzer CoCT: Property Management

CLIENT Anschen Friedrichs Sunbird Energy

EAP Jonathan Crowther CCA Environmental Amy Liefeldt CCA Environmental Christian Seifart PRDW

ATTACHMENT B

PRESENTATION

AGENDA

SUNBIRD ENERGY Welcome and Introduction - Jonathan Crowther (CCA) IBHUBESI GAS PROJECT, WESTERN AND NORTHERN CAPE Introduction to Sunbird Energy – Anschen Friedrichs (Sunbird)

Brief project description – Jonathan Crowther (CCA)

Meeting with City of Cape Town Pipeline landing points and onshore routes – Chris Seifart (PRDW) 20 November 2013 General discussion/Q&A

COMPOSITE GOOGLE EARTH MAP

Process Design - Onshore

Gas Heaters Gas Filter • Indirect fired • Particles only • 8MW • 3 x 33%

Pressure Reduction Metering • Multiple valves • Custody • High noise transfer • Prover loop IBHUBESI GAS PROJECT GOODWOOD MUNICIPALITY MEETING 20 November 2013

SUNBIRD ENERGY BACKGROUND CORPORATE STRUCTURE • South African focused natural gas explorer and developer Capital Structure Undiluted Diluted Board • Gas portfolio covers: Kerwin Rana | Chairman Current Share Price $0.42 $0.42 Chemical Engineer with 17 years mining industry experience, previously Executive Head of New Business for De Beers. Managing Director, Umbono Capital ¾ Ibhubesi Gas Project – the largest undeveloped No. of Shares Outstanding 112.7m 203.7m Will Barker | Managing Director gas field in South Africa Market Capitalisation $47.3m $85.5m Geologist with 15 years experience in gas industry, previously GM LNG, Arrow Energy & OM, New Guinea Energy ¾ Five onshore Coal Bed Methane projects Options 91.0m Andrew Leibovitch | Executive Director Cash $3.0m $23.0m Chartered Accountant, 20+ years in Corp Finance, previous GM roles at Woodside & Western Mining Enterprise Value $44.3m $62.5m Marcus Gracey | Non-Executive Director Figures in AUD$ Corporate Lawyer with extensive energy experience, currently Commercial & Legal Manager at New Standard Energy

Management Team Nathan Rayner | Technical Director Reservoir Engineer with extensive experience in production, reservoir and petroleum engineering

Carla Mackay | Chief Financial Officer Chartered Accountant, experience in SA banking and mining environments including corporate finance, previously with Umbono/Old Mutual

Sundil Ramluggan | Operations Manager Geologist with significant experience in SA, previously with BHP and De Beers

Mark Balfour | General Counsel/Company Secretary Commercial and Resources Lawyer with 30 years’ experience in private legal practice, in-house counsel roles and executive directorships in both listed and unlisted companies

sunbirdenergy.com.au Sunbird delivering value from its large scale gas reserves 2 sunbirdenergy.com.au 3 IBHUBESI GAS PROJECT (IGP) IGP: RESERVES

Largest undeveloped gas field in South Africa Reserves independently certified by MHA Recoverable Recoverable with reserves of 540 Bcf (2P) Petroleum Consultants in June 2013: Gas Condensate Volume Volume • Sunbird – 76% interest • 1P reserves of 210 Bcf (Bcf) (MMbbls) Based on 4 production tested wells • PetroSA – 24% interest - South Africa’s • Proved Reserves (1P) 210 1.7 national oil company • Highest certainty of recovery (P90 - 90% probability) Proved+Probable Reserves (2P) 540 4.3 • 5,000km² Production Licence Proved+Probable+Possible 915 7.3 • 380km north of Cape Town 2P Reserves: Most Likely Recovery Reserves (3P) Source: MHA • 70km offshore, 250m of water • 540 Bcf 2P • Recoverable gas volumes from the 7 Unrisked Gross Prospective Resources (Bcf) • 11 wells drilled, 7 gas discoveries discovery wells (P50 - 50% probability)

• 1,770km2 3D seismic coverage Reservoirs Low Best High Extensive Exploration Upside: • R1,2b spent on exploration and • High historical success rate, 7 discoveries Sequence 14 4,360 6,369 9,082 appraisal since 2000 from 11 wells Sequence 15 1,189 1,702 2,324 • Recent high profile entries into area - • Over 8 Tcf of Prospective Resource within Shell, Anadarko, Cairn India, Exxon and drilling targets defined by 3D/2D seismic Kudu Sand 106 286 628 BHP actively exploring TOTAL 5,655 8,357 12,034 Orange Basin: Best estimate Prospective Resources of 22.5 Tcf gas in place, source: Petroleum Agency of South Africa Source: Forest Oil Corp sunbirdenergy.com.au 4 sunbirdenergy.com.au 5

RSA ENERGY MARKET DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT High value domestic energy market: Independent studies demonstrate viability of development: • Dominated by base-load coal (85%) • Limited diesel peaking 2A, Ibhubesi Gas Project • Total production volume - 540 Bcf (2P reserves) Advancing two routes to market: • Supply profile - 35 Bcf/year (average 100 MMscfd) Island Point • Eskom converting Ankerlig from diesel to gas, • Sales point – Eskom’s Ankerlig Power Plant, Atlantis or IPP at Island diesel costs equate to R220 – R250 per Gj Point / Saldanha • DoE undertaking tender for 2.6GW gas fired IPPs • Field Development Plan: by 2025, with Stage 1 (474MW) submitted in July 400KM • Phase 1: 5 production wells tied to offshore facility Export Pipeline IPP Option – new and 400km offshore export pipeline (Capex R14 billion) build 474MW gas- fired power station • Phase 2: Further 5 production wells tied to existing facilities (Capex R4 billion) • Based on gas price of R120-150/Gj, development of Ibhubesi is economically attractive and meets investment criteria for project financing Saldanha Onshore Receiving Station

• Project Schedule Ankerlig Conversion - Atlantis 1,300MW turbine power • Front End Engineering and design complete by late 2014 plant n diesel Cape Town • Final Investment Decision early 2015 100 • Construction period of 30 months Km • First Gas Production by late 2017

sunbirdenergy.com.au 6 sunbirdenergy.com.au 7

NATIONAL BENEFITS MILESTONES

A domestic energy supply on the Western Cape will assist in Ibhubesi Gas Project meeting the Country’s growing energy needs, improve energy Reserves Certification June 2013 䘠 security, alleviate power shortages, create a new industry and 䘠 local jobs and provide numerous additional benefits: Independent Feasibility Study of Phase 1 Development June 2013 Request For Information for the Department of Energy IPP Tender July 2013 䘠

• SIP 5 Project: Presidential • Training & Development: Concept Selection August 2013 䘠 Infrastructure Coordinating commitment to development of US-TDA Funding and Project Support August 2013 䘠 Commission as a SIP5 project local skills and enterprise Regulatory Approval of Transfer of Title for Ibhubesi Transaction October 2013 䘠 • Foreign Direct Investment: of R20- • Reduction of Carbon Emissions: Request For Information to be submitted for Eskom Ankerlig Gas Supply Tender October 2013 䘠 40 billion directly reduce CO² emissions by 20 million tonnes Initial Field Development Plan and Basis of Design By December 2013 • Electricity Generation: 500 - 2,000MW pa of cleaner electricity • Significant Existing BEE/RSA Independent Certification of Exploration Upside By December 2013 Participation: BEE groups hold • Government Revenue: Royalties, Gas Sales MOU with Eskom for Ankerlig Power Plant By December 2013 (indirectly) 27% of IGP and state corporate tax, payroll taxes and Ibhubesi participation (PetroSA) is currently Independent Power Plant Joint Development Agreement and Gas Sales Term Sheet By December 2013 state (PetroSA) participation 24% Commencement of FEED 1Q 2014 • Industry Participation: contractors • Rand-Based Energy Pricing: ability Assess Partnering/Farm out/Project Financing Opportunities 1Q 2014 and service providers to price proportion of gas supply in • Downstream Industry Creation: Rand create industry onshore • Balance of Trade Benefits: Concept Select / Front End Engineering • Upstream Industry Creation: reduction deficit from fuel imports Project Execution opens the west coast to a new • Security of Supply: reduction in Basis of Design & Design industry reliance on foreign energy supply • Job Creation: substantial direct and H2 2013 2014 2015 indirect jobs VAR FID

sunbirdenergy.com.au 8 sunbirdenergy.com.au 9 CONTACT DISCLAIMER

www.sunbirdenergy.com.au Certain statements contained in this presentation, including information as to the future financial or operating performance of Sunbird and its projects, are forward-looking statements. Such forward-looking statements: • are necessarily based upon a number of estimates and assumptions that, while considered reasonable by Sunbird, are inherently subject to significant technical, business, Kerwin Rana economic, competitive, political and social uncertainties and contingencies; • involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause actual events or results to differ materially from estimated or anticipated events or results reflected in such Chairman forward-looking statements; and • may include, among other things, statements regarding targets, estimates and assumptions in respect of production and prices, operating costs and results, capital expenditures, [email protected] reserves and resources and anticipated flow rates, and are or may be based on assumptions and estimates related to future technical, economic, market, political, social and other conditions. +27 11 484 5005 Ibhubesi Gas Project Sunbird has executed an agreement to acquire a 76% stake in the IGP (Block 2A) from Forest Oil Corporation and The Anschutz Overseas Corporation which will give Sunbird the right to develop and operate the IGP.

Forward Looking Statement Will Barker Sunbird disclaims any intent or obligation to update publicly any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or results or otherwise.

Managing Director The words “believe”, “expect”, “anticipate”, “indicate”, “contemplate”, “target”, “plan”, “intends”, “continue”, “budget”, “estimate”, “may”, “will”, “schedule”, “potential”, “opportunity” and similar expressions identify forward-looking statements.

[email protected] All forward-looking statements made in this presentation are qualified by the foregoing cautionary statements. Investors are cautioned that forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and accordingly investors are cautioned not to put undue reliance on forward-looking statements due to the inherent uncertainty therein.

+61 8 9463 3260 No representation or warranty is or will be made by any person (including Sunbird and its officers, directors, employees, advisers and agents) in relation to the accuracy or completeness of all or part of this document, or any constituent or associated presentation, information or material (collectively, the Information), or the accuracy, likelihood of achievement or reasonableness of any projections, prospects or returns contained in, or implied by, the Information or any part of it. The Information includes information derived Production testing of the A-K2 well Ibhubesi Gas Field in 2000 from third party sources that has not necessarily been independently verified.

Andrew Leibovitch The reserves and resource estimates used in this announcement were compiled by Tim Hower of MHA Petroleum Consultants LLC and are consistent with the definitions of proved, probable, and possible hydrocarbon reserves and resources that appear in the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) Listing Rules. Mr Hower is qualified in accordance with the requirements of ASX listing rule 5.11 and has consented to the use of the reserves and resource figures in the form and context in which they appear in this announcement. Executive Director Subject to any obligations under applicable laws, regulations or securities exchange listing rules, Sunbird disclaims any obligation or undertaking to release any updates or revisions to [email protected] the Information to reflect any change in expectations or assumptions. Nothing contained in the Information constitutes investment, legal, tax or other advice. The Information does not take into account the investment objectives, financial situation or particular needs of any recipient. Before making an investment decision, each recipient of the Information +61 8 9463 3260 should make its own assessment and take independent professional advice in relation to the Information and any action taken on the basis of the Information.

sunbirdenergy.com.au 10 sunbirdenergy.com.au 11

10 DECEMBER 2013: CAPE WEST COAST BIOSPHERE RESERVE

Sunbird Energy: Proposed Ibhubesi Gas Project

SUNBIRD ENERGY

PROPOSED IBHUBESI GAS PROJECT

NOTES OF MEETING HELD ON 10 DECEMBER 2013, 09H00 CAPE WEST COAST BIOSPHERE RESERVE, YZERFONTEIN

PRESENT AND APOLOGIES: Please see the list of attendees and the attached attendance register in Attachment A.

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Jonathan Crowther (JC) of CCA Environmental (CCA) welcomed and thanked everyone for attending the meeting. He then requested that everyone introduce themselves. 1.2 Div Müller (DM) and Jacques van der Merwe (JM) of the Cape West Coast Biosphere Reserve (CWCBR) introduced themselves, followed by the Chairlady of the CWCBR, Sharon February (SF), and the Vice Chairman, Martin Halvorsen (MH). Amy Liefedt (AL) of CCA, Anschen Friedrichs (AF) of Sunbird Energy and Chris Seifart (CS) of PRDW then introduced themselves. 1.3 SF briefly left the room to invite six interns to sit in on the meeting (see attached attendance list).

1.4 JC noted that if anyone needed anything to be explained in Afrikaans, that AF would be able to assist.

2. PRESENTATION 2.1 JC put forward the agenda for the meeting and provided some background information on Sunbird Energy and the proposed Ibhubesi Gas Project (see attached presentation). JC then handed over to AF and CS for their portions of the presentation. 2.2 AF introduced Sunbird Energy, including a brief history on the companies experience in the oil and gas industry to date. She then gave some background information on the Ibhubesi Gas Field itself (see attached presentation). 2.3 JC explained that diesel is currently being refined at Chevron and transported by truck to the Ankerlig Power Station where it is then converted to gas. He further explained that the project would allow gas to be transported directly to Ankerlig via a pipeline, thus eliminating the need for diesel to be transported to the power station. 2.4 AF added that the country is currently paying for fuel in US dollars, whereas the proposed project would allow for a rand based fuel market in South Africa. AF then continued to talk about the reserves of the Ibhubesi gas field and the quality of its gas (see attached presentation). 2.5 JC explained that the gas that is used in most households is a propane mix, while the product of the proposed project would be reticulated gas consisting largely of methane. 2.6 AF then gave details on the various phases of development of the proposed project (see attached presentation).

2.7 CS described the offshore pipeline route and the alternative pipeline landing points and routes and indicated the two different laydown methods. He also spoke about the onshore gas receiving facility (see attached presentation). 2.8 JC mentioned a possible Independent Power Project (IPP) proposed for Saldanha and explained that if the pipeline proposed by Sunbird Energy was already in place, it may entice other energy companies to show interest in the area as well. 2.8 AF proceeded to point out the benefits of the proposed project on both a local and national level (see attached presentation). 2.9 JC then presented an overview of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process that CCA would follow for the proposed project, after which he opened the floor for questions (see attached presentation).

3. DISCUSSION 3.1 JM asked what method would be used to prevent deep pressure from pushing the pipeline up to the surface. CS explained that a drilling fluid consists largely of bentonite which is designed to balance any pressure from hydrocarbons.

1 Meeting Notes: 10 December 2013 Sunbird Energy: Proposed Ibhubesi Gas Project

3.2 MH questioned why the proposed E-W pipeline route would not be closer to Atlantis. JC explained that a number of options for the onshore routing of the pipeline had been considered, but that the areas that contain existing infrastructure (roads, water, and electricity etc.) tend to be more favourable, as having to establish this infrastructure from scratch for the construction and maintenance of the pipe would have major environmental and cost implications. He also reiterated that the proposed pipeline would be buried, thus any vegetation disturbed during the construction process would re-establish in time. He explained that the monitoring of the pipe condition would take place from within the pipe.

3.3 DM questioned whether the proposed project would result in a decrease in electricity prices for South African citizens.

JC explained that although theoretically it should result in a decrease in electricity prices, it might only play a part in the process leading up to this. He explained that although it might not decrease the electricity prices, it might result in lower price increases. DM added that Eskom currently has to add the cost of converting the diesel to gas to the electricity price. He then stated that if this step was to be eliminated, the cost of electricity should technically reduce.

3.4 Martinus Fredericks (MF) of CWCBR stated that to his knowledge, Eskom is considering relocating the Acacia plant to an Atlantis site. JC explained that Acacia is a backup plant for Koeberg and does not generate other power supply.

3.5 MF stated that proposed project would run for 16 hours a day, 5 days a week.

3.6 MH questioned whether or not the pipeline route at Grotto Bay would be situated within the road reserve. JC explained that the pipeline would not be situated within the road reserve, but that it would be situated on the property adjacent to the road reserve on the south. JC then gave a brief description of how the pipe would be laid.

3.7 MH stated that finding suitable onshore access points and the appropriate onshore route for the proposed pipeline would not be as easy as it seemed, as much of the area is protected JC explained that problems would be encountered all along the West Coast in terms of finding a suitable onshore landing point and route for the pipeline. For example the West Coast National Park just north of Yzerfontein, would be a no-go zone. He also mentioned that there are a number of private nature reserves in the area through which the proposed routes would run. He stated that all of the routing options presented would have environmental implications.

3.8 MH stated that the entire land portion of the proposed project would fall within the CWCBR which concerned him. JC explained that the existing infrastructure corridors would be followed where possible. He stated that other possible routes that have been considered would pose an issue in some way or another. MH explained that the members of the CWCBR act as custodians for the area, and that it appears as if the proposed project would run straight through already established N-S and E-W running Biodiversity Corridors. He also mentioned that the area surrounding Silwerstroomstrand is of high conservation value and that there are a number of aquifers that occur along the proposed pipeline routes. MH reiterated his previous statement, saying that the area of the CWCBR runs from the mouth of the Berg River, and that the entire proposed project would fall within this reserve.

3.9 JC explained that the proposed St Helena Bay shore crossing route would avoid most sensitive areas as it would mostly run along existing roads or fence lines. He acknowledged that the proposed Noorwesbaai route would run through a CBA, but that the balance of the proposed route would run through already disturbed farming areas as far as possible and assured the attendees that the best possible onshore landing points and routes had been proposed.

3.10 JC explained that it had been almost impossible to find a suitable location for the onshore gas receiving facility along the coast and that the proposed location for it would most likely be adjacent to the Ankerlig Power Station in the Atlantis industrial area.

2 Meeting Notes: 10 December 2013 Sunbird Energy: Proposed Ibhubesi Gas Project

MH mentioned that if the onshore gas receiving facility were to be located close to the sea, in Silwerstroomstrand for example, it would attract other developers and entice them to want to construct along the coast. He stated that pressure would arise from more people wanting to develop the coastal area. JC agreed with this statement but explained that the further the onshore gas receiving facility is situated from the shore crossing, the higher the associated risks would be for the onshore pipeline.

3.11 MH mentioned that it should be kept in mind that the area is prone to fires.

3.12 SF questioned whether the BEE partners of Sunbird Energy were local or if they come from the Transvaal. AF explained that they are located in Gauteng but that they plan to do a lot of work in and around the Western Cape and get involved with local projects. JC used PetroSA in Mossel Bay as an example to explain that what Sunbird Energy is proposing to do has been happening in other parts of the country for over 20 years. He explained that all of the support facilities for the FA Platform in Mossel Bay are situated in Mossel Bay. The proposed project would also require a number of support services and an industry for this could be established in Saldanha Bay. He explained that although the concept is new to the Western Cape, it is not a new concept for South Africa.

3.13 MH questioned what the life expectancy of the gas field would be. AF explained that Sunbird Energy currently holds a 30 year licence for the block. AF added that the laying of the pipeline would initially result in some disturbance, but that once the area in question was restored, the pipeline would be invisible and no one would know it was there.

3.14 SF made it clear that she had fears surrounding the BEE partnerships with Sunbird Energy not being local. She explained that she is worried that a Transvaal based partner would argue that the West Coast locals do not possess the skills that would be required for the relevant jobs made available by the proposed project. She questioned how the local people would be trained to be able to take on the roles needed. She also questioned how the local people would know out about the job openings when they arise. She stated that she would like to see the local people empowered. AF stated that a final investment decision would only be made in 2015 and that up until that point nothing would be set in stone. She also explained that she is currently on the board of the South African Oil and Gas Alliance (SAOGA) and that they are working towards setting up an oil and gas academy. She stated that some university’s geology departments have incorporated oil and gas into their curriculum and that they are working towards a particular university offering petroleum engineering as a course. She explained that although the locals may not possess the necessary skills right now, SAOGA is actively working at improving the situation. She noted that anyone is able to register to become a member of SAOGA. She explained that the company is currently in a skills and gaps analysis stage, the aim of which is to establish in what sectors of the market workers are needed. She also spoke about Sunbird’s social and labour plan and explained that it is a working document that constantly needs to be updated. She assured SF that the local communities would be consulted in this regard. AF explained that Sunbird Energy is new to Cape Town, but that they plan to grow their office in time and train locals to be employed within the company. JC then mentioned the rigs that are currently situated in the Cape Town harbour. He explained that approximately 250 people are needed to refurbish one rig, and that the need for labour in this industry is growing. SF mentioned that although they may use 250 people per rig they only require one rigger. She explained than not one university in the country offers rigging courses and that they need to start training the locals to be able to do this work.

3.15 MF questioned whether or not CCA would be holding a meeting in Atlantis to inform its residents of the proposed project. JC explained that particular stakeholders of Atlantis, such as the ratepayers association, had already been informed, but that meetings were only held in the areas where the impacts of the proposed project were expected to be significant. MF stated that the strategy should be re-evaluated. He explained that he felt that the people of Atlantis would be greatly affected and that they should be brought on board with what is being proposed. JC reiterated that the necessary authorities had been notified, but that the point had been taken and would be looked into.

3 Meeting Notes: 10 December 2013 Sunbird Energy: Proposed Ibhubesi Gas Project

3.16 DM asked how important the project was on a scale of one to ten for the country in a strategic line. JC explained that previous attempts had been made to get the project off the ground, but that because there was never a specific market before, these attempts had been unsuccessful. He explained that Mozambique has just discovered the second biggest gas field in the world and that gas is currently becoming a discussion point for South Africa. He explained that a gas power station could be brought on-line quickly and may delay the need for nuclear power. He stated that if the Sunbird infrastructure was already in place it may entice other energy companies to explore for gas in the area. AF explained that if Koeberg Power Station was to be mothballed, all of the electricity would have to come from the north of the country, the transmission of which would result in a 16-26% loss of power. AF continued to explain that if the gas was based in the Western Cape, the loss associated with its transport from the north could be eliminated.

3.17 AF explained that another company called Sunrise Energy is in the business of importing LPG gas but that all different energy sectors could work together. She explained that renewable energy sources (wind and solar farms) are not always reliable, as the natural elements cannot be controlled. She explained that in terms of the gas pipeline, the gas can be turned on and off as needed with the pipeline acting as a storage facility. She also mentioned that coal generally takes a long time to heat up, thus is less favourable than gas. MH agreed that the country is in need of the energy sources that would come from the proposed project, but conveyed his concern as to how the resultant impacts, in terms of environmental and social, would be managed.

3.18 JM stated that all Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) should be avoided at all costs when deciding the onshore pipeline route. He explained that where CBAs can’t be avoided, offsets would have to be considered. JC explained that the specialists would take the CBAs into consideration when conducting their field studies. He noted that offsets would then need to be discussed with the CWCBR.

3.19 MH asked whether Dave MacDonald (DM) would be conducting the botanical study for the project. He also questioned who would be conducting the freshwater study JC confirmed that DM would be conducting the botanical study and that Toni Belcher would be conducting the freshwater study. MH suggested Dirk van Driel for the freshwater study. JC noted this point.

4. CLOSURE 4.1 SF thanked CCA and Sunbird Energy for taking the time to come out to the CWCBR offices to present the proposed project. She explained that they only see this as an introduction to the project and asked that social and environmental aspects would be kept in mind at all times as they are both very important. 4.2 JC explained that once the baseline studies had been conducted, another meeting would be held with the CWCBR to come to an agreement regarding the onshore pipeline routes. 4.3 MH thanked JC for letting the interns sit in on the meeting. 4.4 JC explained that everyone who attended the meeting would be put on the Interested and Affected Parties (I&AP) project database and that they would be kept informed of all aspects of the project. He then thanked everyone for being present, and officially closed the meeting at approximately 10h40.

Sunbird/Meetings/Authority Meetings/Sunbird_CWCBR Meeting_10 Dec 2013_Notes Rev 1_21.01.2014

4 Meeting Notes: 10 December 2013 Sunbird Energy: Proposed Ibhubesi Gas Project

ATTACHMENT A

LIST OF ATTENDEES AS PER ATTENDANCE REGISTER

NAME ORGANISATION

I&APs Jacques van der Merwe CWCBR Div Müller CWCBR Martin Halvorsen CWCBR Sharon C February CWCBR Zipho T Shashe CWCBR B Mcehywa CWCBR C Titus CWCBR V Jwayi CWCBR Martinus Fredericks CWCBR Herman Pick CWCBR Jacques van der Merwe CWCBR

CLIENT Anschen Friedrichs Sunbird Energy

EAP Jonathan Crowther CCA Environmental Amy Liefeldt CCA Environmental Christian Seifart PRDW

ATTACHMENT B

PRESENTATION

AGENDA PROPOSED IBHUBESI GAS PROJECT WEST COAST, SOUTH AFRICA 1. Introduction and Objectives of the Meeting (CCA) 2. Presentations í Project Overview (Sunbird & PRDW)

Meeting with Cape West Coast í Impact Assessment Overview (CCA) Biosphere Reserve 3. Question and Answer Session (All) 10 December 2013 4. Way Forward and Closure (CCA)

GROUND RULES GENERAL INTRODUCTION

• Please turn off cell phones 1. Sunbird and PetroSA hold a production right for the Ibhubesi Gas Field project – Block 2A, offshore of the Northern Cape • Points of clarity only during presentations 2. Sunbird is now considering various additional project • Please identify yourself and which organisation you represent components, including an alternative production platform; a 400 (if applicable) km offshore pipeline to the Western Cape; shore crossing sites between Grotto Bay and Duynefontein and Saldanha Peninsula; • Please stick to issue under discussion and an onshore pipeline and onshore gas receiving facility 3. Sunbird is required to comply with the requirements of: • Please sign the Attendance Register • MPRDA (No. 28 of 2002): EMPr Addendum • Notes being taken • NEMA (No. 107 of 1998): Scoping and EIA 5. CCA has been appointed by Sunbird to undertake the required environmental processes

OBJECTIVES OF MEETING

1. Provide a brief description of the proposed Ibhubesi Gas Project and the Impact Assessment process 2. Inform I&APs about the legislative processes that Sunbird is required to comply with 3. Provide I&APs a with reasonable opportunity to be involved in the study 4. Ensure that all potential key environmental issues and PROPOSED IBHUBESI impacts are identified AS ROJECT 5. Identify any potential environmental issues and impacts G P requiring further investigation December 2013 IBHUBESI PROJECT SUMMARY MAP IBHUBESI PROJECT SUMMARY

• Largest undeveloped gas field in South Africa, with proven reserves of 540 Bcf (2P) ZiZZimbabwembmbabbwwee • Located 380km north of Cape Town, 105km BoBBotswanatswaw nna offshore, 250m of water in a 5,000km² MozambiqueMoM zaambm iqqueu Walvis Ridge Production Licence NamibiaNNaamim bia • Over R1 billion spent on exploration and Kalahari development since 2000 SwaziSwaSwazizi SSouthoutth AfricaAffriica --landlanlalannd 2 • 11 wells drilled, 7 gas discoveries, 1,770km Zululand seismic acquired Basin Bushmanland Upper Karoo BlBlockBloocck 2AA Durban • Ready for gas development - no further Basin appraisal drilling necessary BBlBlocklocock 22CC Over R150 million being spent to get to Final • CapeCCaappe TownTowo n Investment Decision (FID) for the full Pletmos development Basin Phase 1 development to cost R12 – 14 billion Transkei • Basin • First gas late 2017/early 2018 • JV partner – PetroSA (24%), South Africa’s national oil company 0 20022000 4040000 600600 800800 10001000000 KilometersKilometers Agulhas Plateau

sunbirdenergy.com.au 2 sunbirdenergy.com.auu 3

THE CASE FOR IBHUBESI IGP: RESERVES

Two routes to market: 1P reserves independently certified by MHA Recoverable Recoverable Petroleum Consultants in June 2013: • Eskom converting Ankerlig from diesel to gas, diesel Gas Condensate costs equate to R220 – R250 per Gj • 1P reserves of 210 Bcf relates to only 4 Volume Volume production tested wells - high certainty of (Bcf) (MMbbls) • DoE undertaking tender for 2.6GW gas fired IPPs by recovery (P90 - 90% probability) 2025, with Stage 1 (474MW) submitted in July Proved Reserves (1P) 210 1.7 • Contained within 4 sand bodies that can be accessed by 4 to 9 wells to produce the P90 Proved+Probable Reserves (2P) 540 4.3 drainage area Proved+Probable+Possible 915 7.3 2P Reserves: Reserves (3P) Pipeline imports 370 Source: MHA MMscfd primarily for • 540 Bcf 2P reserves represent the most Sasol’s GTL likely (P50 - 50% probability) recoverable gas Unrisked Gross Prospective Resources (Bcf) volumes from the 7 discovery wells

400 km pipeline • High historical success rate, 7 of 11 wells Reservoirs Low Best High to Atlantis Potential Island discovered gas, suggests high probability for Point IPP further discoveries Sequence 14 4,360 6,369 9,082 85% of RSA power (outside 3D) Electricity generation from base Prospective Resource: transmitted load coal Significant upside within and outside the 3D Sequence 15 1,189 1,702 2,324 Diesel fired peaking 1,400 km • plants consumed 609 data areas - geological studies identified Kudu Sand 106 286 628 million litres in 2012/13 estimated P50 unrisked Prospective Resource of over 8 Tcf TOTAL 5,655 8,357 12,034 Proposed LNG receiving ExistingEiti domestic d ti gas tto terminal to support GTL and Source: Forest Oil Corp PetroSA Gas to Liquids Plant Power Generation sunbirdenergy.com.ausunbirdenerggyy.comm.au 4 sunbirdenergy.com.au 5

NATURAL GAS QUALITY DRILLING

Natural gas consists predominantly The first phase of the project would include drilling of up to 10 production wells in the production right area. A further 10 wells would be drilled as part of a second of methane (CH4), with the development phase. New wells would be drilled as and when required, based on market remainder made up of ethane, demand. Drilling in the Block 2A production right area has been approved in terms of the carbon dioxide, propane, and long- existing Production Right. chain hydrocarbons.

Conceptual Well Design Production testing of the A-K2 well Ibhubesi Gas Field in 2000

sunbirdenergy.com.au 6 sunbirdenergy.com.au 7 SUBSEA & PIPELINES FIELD SCHEMATIC PRODUCTION FACILITY Two options considered for the Production Facility: Production Platform

Floating Production Storage Offload Vessel (FPSO) Subsea Typically a converted tanker Manifold Semi-submersible Production Platform

Flowline/Pipeline End Termination Services 8

sunbirdenergy.com.au sunbirdenergy.com.au 9

PIPELINE ROUTE PIPELAY AND INSTALLATION • Pipeline route heads a SSE • Rigid pipelines are to be installed by direction pipe lay vessel: • Remains in relatively deep water – 400 km offshore pipline length for much of its length Pipeline diameter between 14” to 18” approximately 75 km offshore – • Rerouting may be required if • On the vessel, 12 m lengths of geophysical survey identifies linepipe are welded together, NDT areas of seabed that are not is performed and joint coating is suitable for the pipeline performed Improved metocean data and • • Typically pipelay can work in geotechnical and geophysical seastates of 1.5 – 2.0 m depending surveys will confirm/optimise the pipeline route on the vessel • The pipeline will be laid on the • Approximately 3 months total pipe sea floor lay duration

sunbirdenergy.com.au 10 sunbirdenergy.com.au 11

SHORE-CROSSINGS SHORE-CROSSINGS

• The “shore-crossing” is the point where the offshore pipeline makes landfall, TRENCHING AND BOTTOM TOW the pipe needs to be buried through the surfzone • Three main activities

– Assembling the pipeline onshore • Can be one of the most expensive components of a subsea pipeline – Guiding the pipeline into the sea using a launchway

– Pulling the pipeline out to sea along the seabed • Two primary installation methods considered: – Burying the pipeline through the beach – Trenching and bottom tow – Horizontal Directional Drilling (trenchless)

• Selection and feasibility is dependant on a number of factors – Geotechnical conditions – Metocean conditions (wind, waves, currents) – Beach characteristics – Overall length of shore-crossing

[Source: Murray & Roberts Marine – Mossel Bay] [Source: Murray & Roberts Marine – Mossel Bay]

sunbirdenergy.com.au 12 sunbirdenergy.com.au 13 SHORE-CROSSINGS SHORE-CROSSINGS

HORIZONTAL DIRECTIONAL DRILLING SHORE-CROSSINGS BETWEEN GROTTO BAY AND DUYNEFONTEIN • Three main activities – Drilling of pilot hole • A number of potential shore-crossing locations considered – Expanding the pilot hole by reaming – Pull-back of pre-assembled pipeline • Assessed using multi-criteria analysis, considering – Technical engineering aspects – Potential environmental impacts – Social impacts, including health & safety risks

• Three preferred shore-crossing locations identified: – Grotto Bay South – Silwerstroom Strand – Duynefontein North

sunbirdenergy.com.au 14 sunbirdenergy.com.au 15

SHORE-CROSSINGS SHORE-CROSSINGS

SHORE-CROSSINGS BETWEEN GROTTO BAY AND DUYNEFONTEIN SHORE-CROSSINGS ON THE SALDANHA PENINSULA

• A number of potential shore-crossing locations identified on the Saldanha peninsula

• Assessed using multi-criteria analysis, considering – Technical engineering aspects – Potential environmental impacts – Social impacts, including health & safety risks

• Three preferred shore-crossing locations identified: – Two locations on the southern coast of St Helena Bay (St Helena West & East) – One location on west coast of the Saldanha peninsula (Noordwesbaai)

sunbirdenergy.com.au 16 sunbirdenergy.com.au 17

SHORE-CROSSINGS ONSHORE PIPELINE

SHORE-CROSSING LOCATIONS ON THE SALDANHA PENINSULA ONSHORE ROUTING TO ANKERLIG

1. East-west corridor from the shore- crossing to north-south corridor

2. North-south corridor adjacent to R27 highway. Three options considered: – Within R27 road reserve – Within Chevron pipeline reserve – New servitude adjacent to Chevron pipeline (basis of current proposal)

3. From north-south corridor to Ankerlig Power Station – Follows Dassenberg Road reserve – Alternative route from Duynefontein North could follow route of Eskom power line servitude

sunbirdenergy.com.au 18 sunbirdenergy.com.au 19 ONSHORE PIPELINE ONSHORE GAS RECEIVING FACILITY

ONSHORE ROUTING TOWARDS SALDANHA • This facility is required to reduce gas pressure in the pipeline and measure the gas flow rate • End-points for onshore routing not yet defined (no specific customer) before it is fed through to an end user. • End-points therefore chosen to coincide with major roadways from where the • The facility is small in extent and would be pipeline could be extended located on a property of approximately 1 ha.

• St Helena East & West • Due to the sensitive nature of the coastal – Majority of route through or environment it is probable that the onshore adjacent to farmland and existing roads to minimize environmental receiving facility would be located near the impact Ankerlig power station.

• Noordwesbaai – Coastal Critical Biodiversity Area cannot be avoided – route chosen to minimize impact – Route follows valley through farmland to R399

sunbirdenergy.com.au 20 sunbirdenergy.com.au 21

NATIONAL BENEFITS A domestic energy supply on the Western Cape that will assist in meeting the Country’s growing energy needs, improve its energy security, alleviate power shortages, create a new industry and local jobs and provide numerous additional benefits IMPACT ASSESSMENT

• SIP 5 Project: Presidential • Training & Development: Infrastructure Coordinating commitment to development of OVERVIEW Commission as a SIP5 project. local skills and enterprise • Foreign Direct Investment: of R20- • Reduction of Carbon Emissions: 40 billion directly reduce CO² emissions by 20 million tonnes • Electricity Generation: 500 - 2,000MW pa of cleaner electricity • Significant Existing BEE/RSA Participation: BEE groups hold Government Revenue: Royalties, • (indirectly) 27% of IGP and state corporate tax, payroll taxes and Ibhubesi participation (PetroSA) is currently state (PetroSA) participation 24% 1. LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS • Industry Participation: contractors • Rand-Based Energy Pricing: ability and service providers to price proportion of gas supply in • Downstream Industry Creation: Rand 2. IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROCESS create industry onshore • Balance of Trade Benefits: • Upstream Industry Creation: reduction deficit from fuel imports 3. IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOCUS AREA opens the west coast to a new • Security of Supply: reduction in industry reliance on foreign energy supply • Job Creation: substantial direct and 4. SPECIALIST STUDIES indirect jobs

sunbirdenergy.com.au 22

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROCESS

1. Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002: 1. Application Form submit to DEA to register the project – Sunbird holds a Production Right and has an approved Scoping Study Phase: EMPr for Licence Block 2A – Approved EMPr needs to be amended 2. First round of public consultation: 2. National Environmental Management Act, 1998: • Identify key stakeholders and I&APs – NEMA provides for the control of certain listed activities, • Adverts placed in Cape Times, Die Burger and Weslander which are prohibited until environmental authorisation is obtained from DEA • Posters placed in Duynefontein, near Yzerfontein, Atlantis – The proposed Ibhubesi Gas Project requires that a full and Saldanha Scoping and EIA be undertaken • BID distributed for a 30-day comment period 3. NEMA & MPRDA process requirements will be undertaken in (closes 10 January 2014) parallel • Meetings in Cape Town, Duynefontein and Saldanha IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROCESS (cont.) IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROCESS (cont.)

3. Baseline specialist studies 10. Hold meetings in Cape Town, Duynefontein and Saldanha

4. Compile Draft Scoping Report - 40 day comment period 11. Compile Final EIR and Final EMPr Addendum

5. Compile Final Scoping Report – 30 day comment period 12. Submit Final EMPr Addendum to PASA (120 days)

6. Submit Final Scoping Report to DEA for approval 13. Release Final EIR for a 30 day comment period

EIA Phase: 14. Submit Final EIR (with any comments) to DEA

7. Compile specialist studies 15. DEA decision period (approximately 120 days)

8. Compile Draft EIR and Draft EMPr Addendum 16. Distribute DEA decision and statutory appeal period

9. Distribute draft reports for 40 day comment

IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOCUS AREA IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOCUS AREA (cont.)

Key focus areas that will be addressed include: • Waste and wastewater discharges to sea which could have localised pollution effects • Exclusion zone around production field and offshore pipeline: • Potential hydrocarbon spills (spills from normal operations and > Loss of access to fishing grounds unplanned failure events) > Potential loss of access for mining • Risk implications of the onshore gas pipeline > Potential interference with marine traffic • Cumulative impacts from numerous smaller activities • Potential gear damage to the fishing industry • Socio-economic impacts and benefits • Biophysical impacts associated with seabed infrastructure, shore crossing, the onshore pipeline and gas receiving facility

PROPOSED IBHUBESI GAS FIELD, SPECIALIST STUDIES WEST COAST, SOUTH AFRICA

1. Current and Dispersion Assessment 7. Heritage 2. Marine Ecology 8. Visual 3. Fisheries 9. Air Quality 4. Vegetation 10. Risk QUESTION AND 5. Freshwater Ecology 11. Social ANSWER SESSION 6. Fauna 12. Economic

13 FEBRUARY 2014: CITY OF CAPE TOWN; ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT

Sunbird Energy: Proposed Ibhubesi Gas Project

SUNBIRD ENERGY

PROPOSED IBHUBESI GAS PROJECT

NOTES OF MEETING HELD ON 13 FEBRUARY 2014, 10H00 AT CITY OF CAPE TOWN OFFICES, ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, MAITLAND

PRESENT AND APOLOGIES: Please see the attendance register in Attachment A.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Jonathan0B Crowther (JC) thanked everyone for attending the meeting. A round table introduction of all present then took place.

2. PRESENTATION

2.1 JC1B provided some background information on the proposed Ibhubesi Gas Project (see Attachment B). He added that Sunbird Energy has recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Eskom to investigate the supply of gas to the Eskom Ankerlig Power Station north of Cape Town. JC then handed over to Anschen Friedrichs (AF) and Derek Paul (DP) to present the project overview and pipeline design, respectively.

2.2 AF2B discussed the background and rationale for the project. She provided a brief overview of the South African Energy market and explained how the proposed project would be beneficial in improving the country’s current energy mix. She went on to state that Eskom Ankerlig would be the anchor client, but that a link to the Saldanha region is also envisioned. AF then described the well drilling, subsea production system, production facility and pipeline route components of the project.

2.3 DP3B presented a detailed description of the possible shore-crossing points, onshore pipeline routes and methods of pipeline installation (for the onshore component) (see attached presentation).

3. DISCUSSION 3.1 JC explained that an environmental process had previously been undertaken for this project at which stage it was intended that gas would be transferred from the Ibhubesi Gas Field to the Northern Cape. However, subsequent to Sunbird Energy’s involvement, a decision was taken to instead target the Western Cape. Morné Theron (MT) asked why the option of supplying the Northern Cape with gas is no longer under consideration. AF responded that in the Northern Cape opportunity is limited to converting gas to electricity and that the existing grid is old and in need of an upgrade. She added that there are few users in this region in comparison to the Western Cape and that areas such as Saldanha provide a wider variety of options for the use of the gas. JC added that given Eskom is looking for a source of gas for the Ankerlig Power Station, this provides a further opportunity within the Western Cape.

3.2 Pat Holmes (PH) queried whether it was the intention to feed all the gas to Ankerlig and what the lifespan of the supply would be. AF responded that most of the gas is proposed for Ankerlig but that the proposed pipeline would include a “packing mechanism” to handle additional off-take during periods when the product is not required onshore. She confirmed that Sunbird Energy’s production right has a 30-year validity (which commenced in 2009) and that the first few wells would provide 6-7 years supply. She clarified, however, that it is intended for more wells to be produced as the market develops.

3.3 MT asked whether other potential suppliers would be able to utilise the proposed infrastructure if additional finds are made in the region in the future. He indicated concern of cumulative impacts should several such pipelines be expected in the area over time. AF explained that policy requires pipeline infrastructure to be shared and made reference to a White Paper which specifies that individual pipelines of the same purpose may not exist within 50 km of one another. She added that pipeline infrastructure is expensive to build and operate and that it is desirable for multiple users to

1 Meeting Notes: 13 February 2014 Sunbird Energy: Proposed Ibhubesi Gas Project

contribute to these costs.

3.4 JC commented that the positioning of the offshore pipeline route has been considered in relation to the key fishing sectors that operate in the area of which trawling is the primary concern given the possibility of trawl nets dislodging or damaging the pipeline on the seafloor. He added that there is a relatively steep shelf drop-off towards canyons in the area and that the pipeline needs to be routed inshore of these features. Clifford Dorse (CD) conveyed that most of the trawling in the area takes place offshore of the proposed route, in the vicinity of the 500 m isobaths.

3.5 MT queried whether a 500 m exclusion zone would apply to the offshore pipeline if the project receives approval and how this would be enforced. JC replied that the location of the pipeline would be registered on the shipping charts so that vessels would be able to avoid it. He went on to explain that pipelines, by the nature of the material from which they are manufactured, generally have some inherent strength and can withstand some contact with vessels and/or equipment.

3.6 DP provided an explanation of the offshore pipeline installation, indicating that a specialised vessel would typically lay approximately 3 km of pipe per day. PH asked if stormy conditions could have implications for the installation process. DP explained that the installation can be temporarily stopped in inclement weather conditions by sealing the pipe and laying it down on the seabed and then lifting and pulling the pipe back onto the vessel and resuming the pipe lay operation at a later stage.

3.7 DP stated that of the two methods under consideration for the installation of the shore-crossing namely “trenching and bottom tow” and “horizontal directional drilling”, “trenching and bottom tow” generally requires a greater laydown area (approximately 1 000 m2) whereas “horizontal directional drilling” is less extensive in terms of the required operational area but is more susceptible to complications. MT asked what extent of laydown area would likely be required for the “horizontal directional drilling” method. He added that the provision of diagrams illustrating the potential area required for each of these methods would be useful. DP confirmed that the laydown area required for the “horizontal directional drilling” method would be much less than 1 000 m2. He went on to say that both installation approaches can be adjusted somewhat to reduce disturbance within sensitive areas as far as possible. The chosen approach would be determined by the conditions at the ultimate shore-crossing point. JC said that details of the areas required for the two shore-crossing installation methods under consideration would be provided in the project description of the Scoping Report.

3.8 It was reported that the identification of possible shore-crossing points was restricted to the coast south of Yzerfontein due to both environmental issues and the need to minimise the length of the onshore pipeline. The shore-crossing points displayed in the presentation obtained the highest score during the multi-criteria analysis process and are located in the vicinity of existing roads and services.

3.9 JC indicated that the proposed onshore pipeline route from Grotto Bay would be located on state-owned land at Ganzekraal. CD clarified that the said land is currently in the process of being transferred to CapeNature.

3.10 MT asked for an estimate of the likely area to be disturbed by the onshore pipeline installation. DP explained that this would be determined by the geotechnical characteristics of the proposed route, but that an area for excavated material as well as an operating area (for machinery) would be required during the construction phase. An area of approximately 15-20 m in width can be anticipated, however in more difficult geotechnical conditions up to 30 m may be required. He added that construction would be the primary period of impact and that thereafter, the entire area can be covered and vegetation restored. JC explained that areas adjacent to road reserves, fencelines and existing firebreaks had been looked at as the most desirable locations for the proposed onshore pipeline.

2 Meeting Notes: 13 February 2014 Sunbird Energy: Proposed Ibhubesi Gas Project

3.11 CD queried whether any valves would appear along the route. DP responded that a valve would be required at the onshore-crossing, but that no valves would be necessary along the onshore pipeline route.

3.12 MT remarked that Duynefontein appeared to be the preferred landing point, as both Silwerstroom Strand and Grotto Bay would be more invasive to the proposed conservation area. JC reported that a few technical design issues associated with the potential increased risk to Koeberg due to the proximity of the Duynefontein option had been raised by Eskom and NERSA during initial discussions, which require further investigation by the technical team. PH commented that the technical argument against this option would need to be strong given that the biodiversity of the surrounding area is sensitive and that significant natural areas have been cleared by Koeberg in the past.

3.13 An enquiry was made as to whether the project team has a preferred option in mind for the onshore pipeline route. JC noted that the project team is only gathering information at this stage and while the Duynefontein option appears more desirable from a distance and cost perspective, the preferred option will be determined once all the relevant information is available.

3.14 MT asked if the alternative onshore routing to Ankerlig from Duynefontein, would require an additional servitude or whether there would be a possibility for a servitude to be shared with the proposed kV Line in that area. DP confirmed that a separate servitude would be required as there are issues with pipelines becoming conductors for stray current from the power lines. He emphasised that such a servitude should not necessarily be viewed as the area of disturbance, as construction activity could still take place within the adjacent power line servitude.

3.15 PH commented that provided activities were undertaken at the right time of year, vegetation restoration would be viable. JC added that the appointed botanical specialist, Dr Dave McDonald, has indicated in his initial feedback that restoration of vegetation along the existing Chevron pipeline has been successful.

3.16 CD pointed out that the alternative option for the onshore routing from Duynefontein to Ankerlig (following the power line servitude) crosses a property with sensitive vegetation coverage and that it would be preferable that this option be re-aligned to follow the road. JC noted this and indicated that an alignment along the R27 road reserve was also being considered.

3.17 CD informed the team that the City of Cape Town (CCT), in partnership with a number of conservation bodies including CapeNature, is currently in the process of establishing the Dassenberg Coastal Catchment Partnership (DCCP), a joint landscape initiative and partnership which will extend from Koeberg to Grotto Bay. He indicated preference that the chosen pipeline route be located adjacent to the R27 within the firebreaks of the DCCP, so as to ensure that it does not transect the conservation management units. JC acknowledged this information and indicated that the pipeline routing has some flexibility. DP went on to say that the proposed routes have followed existing firebreaks and fencelines as far as possible or are positioned adjacent to existing road reserves.

3.18 With respect to alignment of the pipeline route within the vicinity of the Ankerlig Power Station and Koeberg, CD noted that the team needs to take into account a proposed area that is being set aside for a possible desalination plant that is being considered by the CCT. CD stated that the exact location and extent of the proposed plant is uncertain, but that a 50 ha site had been set aside from the DCCP proclamation process (north of Dassenberg Road) for this purpose. It was suggested that Paul Rhode (CCT: Bulkwater Department) be contacted for further information on the proposed desalination plant.

3.19 It was indicated that it would be preferable to locate onshore gas receiving facilities close to the landing point on the coast as this allows the onshore pipeline specifications to be of lower pressure. However, given the sensitivity of the coast in this area a suitable site has not been found. It was stated that a possible site next to the Water Works at Silwerstroom Strand was considered (which is not visible from the Silwerstroom Resort),

3 Meeting Notes: 13 February 2014 Sunbird Energy: Proposed Ibhubesi Gas Project

but that the most probable location is adjacent to the Ankerlig Power Station. CD asked whether a change in pipeline specifications would result in a reduced footprint for the onshore pipeline. DP replied that it would not result in a change in footprint, but that it would be a safer option.

3.20 PH questioned whether Sunbird Energy would have any interest in sponsoring biodiversity initiatives, given that some disturbance to biodiversity resources would occur as a result of the proposed project. AF agreed that this would definitely be discussed and that as part of the submission in terms of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002 they would be looking for initiatives to include in their amended social and labour plan.

3.21 JC described the public participation activities that have been undertaken thus far including the stakeholder meetings that have been held. CCT recommended that CCT: Amenities Department be engaged if the Silwerstroom Strand option is further investigated and reiterated that Paul Rhode (Bulkwater Department) be contacted for information on the proposed desalination plant. It was suggested that Kerry Purnell at CapeNature be contacted for more information on the DCCP.

4. CLOSURE 4.1 JC thanked everyone for their time and encouraged them to submit formal comments during the course of the environmental process. 4.2 JC then formally closed the meeting off at approximately 11h30.

Sunbird/Meetings/Authority Meetings/Sunbird - CCT (ERM) Meeting_13 Feb 2014_Notes Rev 1_24.02.2014

4 Meeting Notes: 13 February 2014 Sunbird Energy: Proposed Ibhubesi Gas Project

ATTACHMENT A

LIST OF ATTENDEES AS PER ATTENDANCE REGISTER

NAME ORGANISATION

I&APs Clifford Dorse CCT: Biodiversity Management Clarissa Brandt CCT: Biodiversity Management Andre Rossouw CCT: Biodiversity Management Pat Holmes CCT: Biodiversity Management Morné Theron CCT: Environmental Resource Management

CLIENT Anschen Friedrichs Sunbird Energy Sundil Ramluggan Sunbird Energy

EAP Jonathan Crowther CCA Environmental Elizabeth Dudley CCA Environmental Derek Paul PRDW

ATTACHMENT B

PRESENTATION

AGENDA PROPOSED IBHUBESI GAS PROJECT WEST COAST, SOUTH AFRICA 1. Introduction and Objectives of the Meeting (CCA) 2. Presentations í Project Overview (Sunbird & PRDW) Meeting with City of Cape Town í Impact Assessment Overview (CCA) Environmental Resource Management 3. Question and Answer Session (All) Department 4. Way Forward and Closure (CCA) 13 February 2014

GROUND RULES GENERAL INTRODUCTION

OBJECTIVES OF MEETING

1. Provide a brief description of the proposed Ibhubesi Gas Project and the Impact Assessment process 2. Inform I&APs about the legislative processes that Sunbird is required to comply with 3. Provide I&APs a with reasonable opportunity to be involved in the study 4. Ensure that all potential key environmental issues and PROPOSED IBHUBESI impacts are identified AS ROJECT 5. Identify any potential environmental issues and impacts G P requiring further investigation FEBRUARY 2014 IBHUBESI PROJECT SUMMARY MAP IBHUBESI PROJECT SUMMARY

sunbirdenergy.com.au 7 sunbirdenergy.com.auu 8

THE CASE FOR IBHUBESI IGP: RESERVES

400 km pipeline • High historical success rate, 7 of 11 wells Reservoirs Low Best High to Atlantis Potential Island discovered gas, suggests high probability for Point IPP further discoveries Sequence 14 4,360 6,369 9,082 85% of RSA power (outside 3D) Electricity generation from base Prospective Resource: transmitted load coal Significant upside within and outside the 3D Sequence 15 1,189 1,702 2,324 Diesel fired peaking 1,400 km • plants consumed 609 data areas - geological studies identified Kudu Sand 106 286 628 million litres in 2012/13 estimated P50 unrisked Prospective Resource of over 8 Tcf TOTAL 5,655 8,357 12,034 Proposed LNG receiving ExistingEiti domestic d ti gas to t terminal to support GTL and Source: Forest Oil Corp PetroSA Gas to Liquids Plant Power Generation sunbirdenergy.com.ausunbirdenerggyy.comm.au 9 sunbirdenergy.com.au 10

NATURAL GAS QUALITY DRILLING

Conceptual Well Design Production testing of the A-K2 well Ibhubesi Gas Field in 2000

sunbirdenergy.com.au 11 sunbirdenergy.com.au 12 SUBSEA & PIPELINES FIELD SCHEMATIC PRODUCTION FACILITY Two options considered for the Production Facility: Production Platform

Floating Production Storage Offload Vessel (FPSO) Subsea Typically a converted tanker Manifold Semi-submersible Production Platform

Flowline/Pipeline End Termination Services 13

sunbirdenergy.com.au sunbirdenergy.com.au 14

sunbirdenergy.com.au 15 sunbirdenergy.com.au 16

SHORE-CROSSINGS SHORE-CROSSINGS

• The “shore-crossing” is the point where the offshore pipeline makes landfall, TRENCHING AND BOTTOM TOW the pipe needs to be buried through the surfzone • Three main activities

– Assembling the pipeline onshore • Can be one of the most expensive components of a subsea pipeline – Guiding the pipeline into the sea using a launchway

[Source: Murray & Roberts Marine – Mossel Bay] [Source: Murray & Roberts Marine – Mossel Bay]

sunbirdenergy.com.au 17 sunbirdenergy.com.au 18 SHORE-CROSSINGS SHORE-CROSSINGS

• Three preferred shore-crossing locations identified: – Grotto Bay South – Silwerstroom Strand – Duynefontein North

sunbirdenergy.com.au 19 sunbirdenergy.com.au 20

SHORE-CROSSINGS SHORE-CROSSINGS

SHORE-CROSSINGS BETWEEN GROTTO BAY AND DUYNEFONTEIN SHORE-CROSSINGS ON THE SALDANHA PENINSULA

• A number of potential shore-crossing locations identified on the Saldanha peninsula

• Assessed using multi-criteria analysis, considering – Technical engineering aspects – Potential environmental impacts – Social impacts, including health & safety risks

sunbirdenergy.com.au 21 sunbirdenergy.com.au 22

SHORE-CROSSINGS ONSHORE PIPELINE

SHORE-CROSSING LOCATIONS ON THE SALDANHA PENINSULA ONSHORE ROUTING TO ANKERLIG

1. East-west corridor from the shore- crossing to north-south corridor

3. From north-south corridor to Ankerlig Power Station – Follows Dassenberg Road reserve – Alternative route from Duynefontein North could follow route of Eskom power line servitude

sunbirdenergy.com.au 23 sunbirdenergy.com.au 24 ONSHORE PIPELINE ONSHORE GAS RECEIVING FACILITY

• Noordwesbaai – Coastal Critical Biodiversity Area cannot be avoided – route chosen to minimize impact – Route follows valley through farmland to R399

sunbirdenergy.com.au 25 sunbirdenergy.com.au 26

sunbirdenergy.com.au 27

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROCESS

3. Baseline specialist studies 10. Hold meetings in Cape Town, Duynefontein and Saldanha

4. Compile Draft Scoping Report - 40 day comment period 11. Compile Final EIR and Final EMPr Addendum

5. Compile Final Scoping Report – 30 day comment period 12. Submit Final EMPr Addendum to PASA (120 days)

6. Submit Final Scoping Report to DEA for approval 13. Release Final EIR for a 30 day comment period

EIA Phase: 14. Submit Final EIR (with any comments) to DEA

7. Compile specialist studies 15. DEA decision period (approximately 120 days)

8. Compile Draft EIR and Draft EMPr Addendum 16. Distribute DEA decision and statutory appeal period

9. Distribute draft reports for 40 day comment

IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOCUS AREA IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOCUS AREA (cont.)

PROPOSED IBHUBESI GAS FIELD, SPECIALIST STUDIES WEST COAST, SOUTH AFRICA

10 APRIL 2014: PETROLEUM AGENCY SA

Sunbird Energy: Proposed Ibhubesi Gas Project

SUNBIRD ENERGY

PROPOSED IBHUBESI GAS PROJECT

NOTES OF MEETING HELD WITH PETROLEUM AGENCY OF SA ON 10 APRIL 2014, 15H30

PRESENT AND APOLOGIES: The list of attendees is provided in Attachment A.

1. INTRODUCTION Anschen Friedrichs (AF) introduced Sunbird and thanked PASA for making the time available for the meeting. All attendees introduced themselves.

2. PRESENTATION 2.1 AF provided the introductory presentation of the project. It was noted that this project is an amendment to the existing Production Right and that the existing rights would remain in place. 2.2 Jonathan Crowther (JC) then presented the project description and EIA process. A copy of the presentations is attached to the minutes.

3. DISCUSSION 3.1 Offshore platforms JC indicated that Sunbird is considering either an FPSO or a semi-sub production platform. Both options will be assessed through the EIA process. The change from the approved project is that condensate will no longer be piped to shore, but stored on the platform for later offloading and transportation via ship three to four times per year. Pumla Ngesi (PN) asked whether only one facility would be needed; previously three tension leg platforms (TLP’s) were approved. PN asked that it is made clear what is already approved and what has been included for this application. JC confirmed that a table will be provided, confirming what has been approved under the EIA and what the additional items are included under the amendment EMPr and EIA application. Ceri Morgan (CM) asked for confirmation of what would count as changes. For example: discharges were approved for the TLP. If the proposed changes stay within the same parameters and volumes, would an assessment be needed? PN answered that any changes would need to be assessed, for example, condensate loading and unloading (and frequency of event) is a change from what has been approved in the past. JC noted that CCA will establish where the revised project varies from that of what was previously approved.

3.2 Offshore pipeline route JC indicated that the pipeline route would largely avoid the trawl fishery area which is a critical aspect regarding the pipeline route. There would be some flexibility with regards to the actual final pipeline route which would be considered by the specialist studies. JC mentioned that the distance offshore that the pipeline would pass Saldanha is approximately 20 to 30 kilometres. It could not be located further offshore as the pipeline would have to avoid some of the canyons located in deeper waters. A 500 meter exclusion zone will be applicable. This would be registered on hydrographic charts.

3.3 Shore crossings Southern options: Three shore crossings (out of various other options that were considered at a higher level) were selected for the link to Ankerlig. These are: Grotto Bay, Silverstroom Strand and Duynefontein. These three were selected because they would have the lowest biophysical impact due to existing infrastructure and power availability.

1 Meeting Notes: 10 April 2014 Sunbird Energy: Proposed Ibhubesi Gas Project

PN wanted to know whether the assessment team had a preferred alternative at this stage. JC responded that at this stage there was no preference – further input would be needed from the project engineers and specialists during the assessment process. JC mentioned that the Grotto Bay community are of the opinion that due to the complexity of the crossing that it would not be located there. Although this option would require directional drilling (rocky beach) which will be expensive, it cannot be disregarded at this stage. PN asked whether the onshore pipeline would be buried? JC responded that the pipeline would be buried approximately 1.5 meters below the ground level and then rehabilitated. JC noted that the Chevron pipeline had been in place for many years and that rehabilitation had been very successful – such that the pipeline route was hardly visible. PN asked what the anticipated width of the pipeline would be. JC responded that he was not sure of the exact width that would be formally registered as a servitude. JC pointed out that a large portion of the area through which the pipeline would pass is being earmarked for formal conservation by CapeNature and the City of Cape Town. He also indicated that the City had earmarked a 50 ha area between the R27 and Dassenberg for a future desalination plant. A meeting with the CCT: Environmental Resource Management, they suggested that a preferred alignment for the north-south link would be for the servitude to run parallel to but outside the R27 road reserve. This would reduce any impact on future conservation management units and would link into a firebreak that they would provide along the R27. Northern shore crossing options: These include two alternatives at St Helena Bay and one at Noordwesbaai. St Helena Bay: JC pointed out the possible wind farm project that this route would have to pass through and that most of the route alignment was through wheat fields. JC noted that farmers would still be able to continue with wheat farming over the pipeline and that the alignment could be worked around the wind turbines. Noordwesbaai: JC indicated that CCA had interacted with the landowner who did not appear to be too concerned as long as the pipeline across his property was aligned along future road reserves to minimise impacts on his plans for housing. Near the shore crossing areas of sensitive vegetation would be affected. There may be some water course issues that would have to be considered. The pipeline would avoid granite outcrops in the area. JC noted that an end point (or user) has not as yet been identified and thus a onshore receiving facility is not being considered as part of this project. Including the northern onshore pipeline in the scope of the study would mean a much easier process for any future user. CM reiterated the point that further technical work is required on the shore crossings to determine the preferred options and method of installation.

3.4 Onshore gas receiving facility JC indicated that the onshore gas receiving facility is proposed to be located at one of two locations either side of the Ankerlig power station. The facility is required to reduce pressure in the offshore pipeline before the gas is fed into Ankerlig. A meter would be included to measure the quantity of gas provided to Eskom. This facility would be the “end” of this project. Eskom would be required to undertake the necessary process to convert the power station to receive the gas.

3.5 National benefits AF listed the various positive contributions that the project would contribute to the economy and that it fell under the presidential SIP5 project.

3.6 Process and legislation JC pointed out that two application processes would be undertaken in terms of NEMA and the MPRDA. These processes would be undertaken in parallel in order to reduce the project programme.

3.7 Scoping Study phase JC provided a summary of the steps undertaken in the Scoping Study to date. He indicated that CCA was in the final steps of editing the draft scoping report and that it would shortly be released for public comment. JC asked whether the scoping report needs to be submitted to PASA. PN confirmed that PASA will go through the report and submit any comments that they may have on the project scope.

2 Meeting Notes: 10 April 2014 Sunbird Energy: Proposed Ibhubesi Gas Project

PN asked how the draft EIR will be different from the draft EMPR. JC noted that they would largely be very much the same but confirmed that there was still a requirement for both and that two separate documents will be submitted. JC noted that the EMPr would contain financial information that may not necessarily be for public viewing.

3.8 Financial Provision PN asked that Sunbird review the status of the financial provision and whether the quantum needs to be updated.

3.9 Northern Cape CCA will interact with authorities in the Northern Cape but will not hold public meetings there in order to avoid raising expectations with regards to jobs, etc.

3.10 EIA phase JC then ran through the proposed tasks that would be undertaken during the EIA phase. CM questioned whether the 120 day MPRDA approval process would stop if additional information was requested by PASA. PN answered that the applicant may be asked for further information but that this would not necessarily stop the clock. PASA is required by law to request comment from other departments – a 60 day period. PASA is then required to process any responses and make a recommendation to the Minister. PN noted that should any appeals be received then the application would have to be presented to Remdec before it can be submitted to the Minister for approval. This would add extra time to the approval process. JC noted that the NEMA process also requires period of approximately 120 day in which to make a decision.

3.11 JC indicated that the Final Scoping Report is expected to be submitted for DEA and PASA acceptance by mid-June 2014. The Final EIR would be submitted in late 2014 with a decision anticipated by mid-April 2015.

3.12 JC mentioned that there are diamond as well as phosphate concessions in the offshore that the pipeline would cross through. PN asked if the rights holders had been notified of the proposed project. JC indicated that all rights holders should have been notified and they will ensure that this is the case.

3.13 JC listed the 12 specialist studies that would be undertaken to address the key issues identified for assessment in the study. PN asked whether there were any approved Marine Protected Areas that could be affected by the proposed project. JC responded that there were MPA’s but that they were further south and MPA’s for extraction, mainly for fishing. These MPA’s will be described in the scoping report.

3.14 The meeting was concluded with the following summary: - Sunbird has an approved EMP. It is necessary to emphasized what may change in the amendment process; - Sunbird will retain its existing authorisation but may not use all aspects as part of this project; - Environmental approval is key component before Sunbird can serious commit to the project budget. Sunbird is serious about the project and moving it forward; and - PN asked that it is made very clear in the EIA documentation that Sunbird has an existing production Right and that this process is for an amendment of what is currently in place.

4. CLOSURE

4.1 AF thanked PASA for meeting with Sunbird and CCA and closed the meeting at approximately 17h05

Sunbird/Meetings/PASA techincal Meetings/Pasa Meeting_10 Apr14_Notes Rev 2 17 April14

3 Meeting Notes: 10 April 2014 Sunbird Energy: Proposed Ibhubesi Gas Project

ATTACHMENT A

LIST OF ATTENDEES AS PER ATTENDANCE REGISTER

NAME ORGANISATION

PASA Phumla Ngesi Dovhani Mahumele

Proponent Anschen Friedrichs Sunbird Ceri Morgan Sunbird

EAP Jonathan Crowther CCA Environmental

ATTACHMENT B

PRESENTATION

IBHUBESI PROJECT SUMMARY MAP

• Largest undeveloped gas field in South Africa, with proven reserves of 540 Bcf (2P) • Located 380km north of Cape Town, 105km offshore, 250m of water in a 5,000km² Production Licence • Over R1 billion spent on exploration and development since 2000 • 11 wells drilled, 7 gas discoveries, 1,770km2 seismic acquired • Ready for gas development ‐ no further appraisal drilling necessary • Over R150 million being spent to get to Final PROPOSED IBHUBESI Investment Decision (FID) for the full development GAS PROJECT • Phase 1 development to cost R12 –14 billion • First gas late 2017/early 2018 10 April 2014 –Presentation to Petroleum Agency SA • JV partner –PetroSA (24%), South Africa’s national oil company

sunbirdenergy.com.au 2

IBHUBESI PROJECT SUMMARY DRILLING

The first phase of the project would include drilling of up to 10 production wells in the Zimbabwe production right area. A further 10 wells would be drilled as part of a second Botswana development phase. New wells would be drilled as and when required, based on market Mozambique demand. Drilling in the Block 2A production right area has been approved in terms of the Walvis Ridge Namibia existing Production Right.

Kalahari Swazi South Africa -land

Zululand Basin Bushmanland Upper Karoo Block 2A Durban Basin

Block 2C

Cape Town

Pletmos Basin

Transkei Basin

0 200 400 600 800 1000 Agulhas Plateau Kilometers Conceptual Well Design Production testing of the A‐K2 well Ibhubesi Gas Field in 2000 sunbirdenergy.com.au 3 sunbirdenergy.com.au 4

SUBSEA & PIPELINES FIELD SCHEMATIC PRODUCTION FACILITY Two options considered for the Production Facility: Production Platform

Floating Production Storage Offload Vessel (FPSO) Subsea Typically a converted tanker Manifold Semi‐submersible Production Platform

Flowline/Pipeline End Termination Services 5

sunbirdenergy.com.au sunbirdenergy.com.au 6 PIPELINE ROUTE PIPELAY AND INSTALLATION • Pipeline route heads a SSE • Rigid pipelines are to be installed by direction pipe lay vessel: • Remains in relatively deep water – 400 km offshore pipline length for much of its length approximately 75 km offshore – Pipeline diameter between 14” to 18” • Rerouting may be required if • On the vessel, 12 m lengths of geophysical survey identifies linepipe are welded together, NDT areas of seabed that are not is performed and joint coating is suitable for the pipeline performed Improved metocean data and • • Typically pipelay can work in geotechnical and geophysical seastates of 1.5 –2.0 m depending surveys will confirm/optimise the pipeline route on the vessel • The pipeline will be laid on the • Approximately 3 months total pipe sea floor lay duration

sunbirdenergy.com.au 7 sunbirdenergy.com.au 8

SHORE‐CROSSINGS SHORE‐CROSSINGS

• The “shore‐crossing” is the point where the offshore pipeline makes landfall, TRENCHING AND BOTTOM TOW the pipe needs to be buried through the surfzone • Three main activities – Assembling the pipeline onshore Can be one of the most expensive components of a subsea pipeline • – Guiding the pipeline into the sea using a launchway – Pulling the pipeline out to sea along the seabed • Two primary installation methods considered: – Burying the pipeline through the beach – Trenching and bottom tow – Horizontal Directional Drilling (trenchless)

[Source: Murray & Roberts Marine – Mossel Bay] [Source: Murray & Roberts Marine – Mossel Bay]

sunbirdenergy.com.au 9 sunbirdenergy.com.au 10

SHORE‐CROSSINGS SHORE‐CROSSINGS

HORIZONTAL DIRECTIONAL DRILLING SHORE‐CROSSINGS BETWEEN GROTTO BAY AND DUYNEFONTEIN • Three main activities – Drilling of pilot hole • A number of potential shore‐crossing locations considered – Expanding the pilot hole by reaming – Pull‐back of pre‐assembled pipeline • Assessed using multi‐criteria analysis, considering – Technical engineering aspects – Potential environmental impacts – Social impacts, including health & safety risks

• Three preferred shore‐crossing locations identified: – Grotto Bay South – Silwerstroom Strand – Duynefontein North

sunbirdenergy.com.au 11 sunbirdenergy.com.au 12 SHORE‐CROSSINGS SHORE‐CROSSINGS

SHORE‐CROSSINGS BETWEEN GROTTO BAY AND DUYNEFONTEIN SHORE‐CROSSINGS ON THE SALDANHA PENINSULA

• A number of potential shore‐crossing locations identified on the Saldanha peninsula

• Assessed using multi‐criteria analysis, considering – Technical engineering aspects – Potential environmental impacts – Social impacts, including health & safety risks

• Three preferred shore‐crossing locations identified: – Two locations on the southern coast of St Helena Bay (St Helena West & East) – One location on west coast of the Saldanha peninsula (Noordwesbaai)

sunbirdenergy.com.au 13 sunbirdenergy.com.au 14

SHORE‐CROSSINGS ONSHORE PIPELINE

SHORE‐CROSSING LOCATIONS ON THE SALDANHA PENINSULA ONSHORE ROUTING TO ANKERLIG

1. East‐west corridor from the shore‐ crossing to north‐south corridor

2. North‐south corridor adjacent to R27 highway. Three options considered: – Within R27 road reserve – Within Chevron pipeline reserve – New servitude adjacent to Chevron pipeline (basis of current proposal)

3. From north‐south corridor to Ankerlig Power Station – Follows Dassenberg Road reserve – Alternative route from Duynefontein North could follow route of Eskom power line servitude

sunbirdenergy.com.au 15 sunbirdenergy.com.au 16

ONSHORE PIPELINE ONSHORE GAS RECEIVING FACILITY

ONSHORE ROUTING TOWARDS SALDANHA • This facility is required to reduce gas pressure in the pipeline and measure the gas flow rate • End‐points for onshore routing not yet defined (no specific customer) before it is fed through to an end user. • End‐points therefore chosen to coincide with major roadways from where the • The facility is small in extent and would be pipeline could be extended located on a property of approximately 1 ha.

• Noordwesbaai – Coastal Critical Biodiversity Area cannot be avoided –route chosen to minimize impact – Route follows valley through farmland to R399 sunbirdenergy.com.au 17 sunbirdenergy.com.au 18 NATIONAL BENEFITS A domestic energy supply on the Western Cape that will assist in meeting the Country’s growing energy needs, improve its energy security, alleviate power shortages, create a new industry and local jobs and provide numerous additional benefits

• SIP 5 Project: Presidential • Training & Development: Infrastructure Coordinating commitment to development of Commission as a SIP5 project. local skills and enterprise • Foreign Direct Investment: of R20‐ • Reduction of Carbon Emissions: 40 billion directly reduce CO² emissions by 20 million tonnes • Electricity Generation: 500 ‐ 2,000MW pa of cleaner electricity • Significant Existing BEE/RSA Participation: BEE groups hold Government Revenue: Royalties, • (indirectly) 27% of IGP and state corporate tax, payroll taxes and Ibhubesi participation (PetroSA) is currently state (PetroSA) participation 24% • Industry Participation: contractors • Rand‐Based Energy Pricing: ability and service providers to price proportion of gas supply in • Downstream Industry Creation: Rand create industry onshore • Balance of Trade Benefits: • Upstream Industry Creation: reduction deficit from fuel imports opens the west coast to a new • Security of Supply: reduction in industry reliance on foreign energy supply • Job Creation: substantial direct and indirect jobs

sunbirdenergy.com.au 19

25 JUNE 2014: CAPENATURE

Sunbird Energy: Proposed Ibhubesi Gas Project

SUNBIRD ENERGY

PROPOSED IBHUBESI GAS PROJECT

NOTES OF MEETING HELD WITH CAPE NATURE ON 25 JUNE 2014, 9H00 AT SCIENTIFIC SERVICES, ASSEGAAIBOSCH NATURE RESERVE, JONKERSHOEK ROAD, STELLENBOSCH

PRESENT AND APOLOGIES: Please see the attendance register in Attachment A.

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Alana Duffell-Canham (ADC) of CapeNature thanked CCA for meeting with CapeNature in order to present the proposed Ibhubesi Gas Project and to discuss some of their concerns.

2. PRESENTATION 2.1 Jonathan Crowther (JC) provided some background information and details of the proposed Ibhubesi Gas Project (see presentation in Attachment B). JC also provided a brief summary of the pipeline screening assessment (multi-criteria analysis) undertaken by PRDW. A copy of the PRDW report was handed to ADC.

3. KEY DISCUSSION ITEMS 3.1 ADC noted that the CSIR is currently undertaking a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for a potential LNG pipeline from Saldanha to Atlantis and Cape Town. She stated that it is important to avoid the situation where there are multiple gas pipelines / corridors rather than a single strategic gas pipeline corridor.

JC noted that the current Scoping and EIA (S&EIA) process will provide a comparative assessment of the various pipeline routes, which would essentially identify a preferred pipeline corridor to Ankerlig and on the Saldanha Peninsula. He indicated that it was possible that government (National or Provincial) could decide to put in a larger diameter pipeline to accommodate other gas suppliers / projects.

ADC noted that other gas supplies would only be able to link into the Sunbird pipeline if the gas is compatible.

Jeremy Blood (JB) stated that it was also possible for other pipelines to potentially be located adjacent to the Sunbird pipeline, thereby creating a strategic pipeline corridor.

ADC stated that PetroSA is involved in the SEA and is a partner in the proposed Ibhubesi Gas Project and thus should be aware all the alternatives being considered.

3.2 ADC indicated that the Duynefontein alternative was the most concerning of the southern pipeline alternatives. She also noted that locating the pipeline too close to powerlines could cause problems for Eskom.

JC indicated that Eskom had raised this as an issue and explained that electrical fields created by the pipeline could accelerate the corrosion of powerline towers. He noted that this would need to be addressed in the S&EIA process.

3.3 ADC indicated that the Noordwesbaai and St Helena East alternatives were the most concerning of the northern pipeline alternatives.

JC noted that the Noordwesbaai alternative would probably need to be moved further to the west due to the Bok River and a proposed residential development. He also noted that the St Helena East could be moved further to the west to avoid the Berg River Estuary. He indicated that the majority of the St Helena East and West alignment alternatives were located within cultivated fields.

1 Meeting Notes: 25 June 2014 Sunbird Energy: Proposed Ibhubesi Gas Project

3.4 ADC noted that the location of the onshore gas receiving facility near Ankerlig would need to take cognisance of the proposed powerline from the Juno Substation to the Aurora Substation.

JC noted that Eskom had already raised the issue that the proposed onshore facility near Ankerlig was located in the same area as th proposed Koeberg – Ankerlig 132 kV powerline servitude.

JB noted that Eskom is aware of the proposed project as Sunbird had signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Eskom to investigate the supply of gas to Ankerlig.

3.5 Rhett Smart (RS) asked what the width of the construction corridor would be.

3.6 JC noted that the area of disturbance along the onshore pipeline route would ultimately be determined by the geotechnical characteristics of the proposed route, e.g. sandy soils would require a wider trench and would thus have a greater area of disturbance. Based on the estimated width of the trench, topsoil stockpile, spoil stockpile and access road / work area, it is estimated that the width of the construction servitude would be approximately 20 to 30 m along the pipeline route.

3.7 JC indicated that pipeline servitude would be rehabilitated after construction and said it would look similar to the Chevron pipeline.

ADC noted that the vegetation in the Chevron pipeline had recovered 40% of the plant species after 30 years, which was good in rehabilitation terms.

3.8 ADC noted that Nick Helme had undertaken the vegetation assessment for the proposed desalination pipeline on the Saldanha Peninsula. She suggested that it might be worthwhile for the botanist (Dr Dave McDonald) to refer to this report.

3.9 RS and ADC requested that the assessment take cognisance of existing and proposed protected areas in the northern and southern areas.

3.10 RS asked if the Ibhubesi gas could be reticulated.

JC stated that the Ibhubesi gas was approximately 90% methane and that it could be reticulated if it was processed beforehand. However, this was not part of the current project.

4. CLOSURE 4.1 JC thanked the CapeNature officials for making their tie available to meet and discuss the proposed project.

4.2 JC then formally closed the meeting at approximately 10h40.

Sunbird/Meetings/CapeNature Meeting/CapeNature Meeting Notes rev0 (25 June 14)

2 Meeting Notes: 25 June 2014

ATTACHMENT A

LIST OF ATTENDEES AS PER ATTENDANCE REGISTER

NAME ORGANISATION Alana Duffell-Canham CapeNature Rhett Smart CapeNature Jonathan Crowther CCA Environmental Jeremy Blood CCA Environmental Sam Zimmermann (student - job shadowing)

ATTACHMENT B

PRESENTATION

PROJECT OVERVIEW

• Sunbird holds a production right for the Ibhubesi Gas Field project (Block 2A). • JV partner –PetroSA (24%). • Production Right area is ±5 000 km2. • Located ±60 km off the Northern Cape coast in water depths of between 200 m and 250 m. • Over R1 billion spent on exploration and development since 2000. • 11 wells drilled, 7 gas discoveries, ROPOSED BHUBESI 1 770 km2 seismic acquired. P I • Largest undeveloped gas field in South Africa, with proven reserves of 540 Bcf (2P). GAS PROJECT • Phase 1 development to cost R12 –14 25 June 2014 –CapeNature Meeting billion. • First gas late 2017/early 2018.

sunbirdenergy.com.au 2

ORIGINAL PROJECT APPROVAL PROPOSED IBHUBESI GAS PROJECT • Resource development: • Sunbird has reassessed the approved development concept. > 3D seismic. > 99 development wells. • The key additions / alternatives include the following: • Offshore component: > FPSO or a semi‐submersible production platform. > Subsea production system, including ± subsea wellheads, production trees, > 400 km offshore pipeline (14‐ to 18‐inch) to Western manifolds and subsea pipelines. Cape. > Three TLPs. > An onshore pipeline between the shore‐crossing site and > Two 110 km production pipelines (12‐inch). Ankerlig and potential end users on the Saldanha • Onshore component: Peninsula. > Onshore gas processing facility. > An onshore gas receiving facility near Ankerlig. > Access road. > Services (e.g. water, sewage and electricity).

sunbirdenergy.com.au 3 sunbirdenergy.com.au 4

PRODUCTION FACILITY OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE Two options considered for the Production Facility: • Pipeline route remains in relatively deep water for much of its length ±75 km offshore. • Rerouting may be required if geophysical survey identifies areas of seabed that are not suitable for the pipeline. • Improved metocean data and geotechnical and geophysical surveys will confirm/optimise the Floating Production Storage Offload pipeline route. Vessel (FPSO) • The pipeline will be laid on the Typically a converted tanker Semi‐submersible Production Platform seafloor.

sunbirdenergy.com.au 5 sunbirdenergy.com.au 6 ONSHORE PIPELINE ROUTES ONSHORE PIPELINE ROUTES

SOUTHERN SHORE‐CROSSINGS BETWEEN GROTTO BAY AND DUYNEFONTEIN NORTHERN SHORE‐CROSSING LOCATIONS ON THE SALDANHA PENINSULA

sunbirdenergy.com.au 7 sunbirdenergy.com.au 8

ONSHORE GAS RECEIVING FACILITY ONSHORE GAS RECEIVING FACILITY

• This facility is required to reduce gas pressure in the pipeline and measure the gas flow rate before it is fed through to an end user. • The facility is small in extent and would be located on a property of approximately 1 ha. • Three alternative sites.

Water treatment plant

sunbirdenergy.com.au 9 sunbirdenergy.com.au 10