ENERCOM’S The Oil & Gas Conference

August 14, 2012

Denver, CO

1

The data contained in this presentation that are not historical facts are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Section 27A of the Securities Act and Section 21E of the Exchange Act. Such statements may relate to capital expenditures, drilling and exploitation activities, production efforts and sales volumes, proved, probable, and possible reserves, operating and administrative costs, future operating or financial results, cash flow and anticipated liquidity, business strategy, property acquisitions, and the availability of drilling rigs and other oil field equipment and services. These forward-looking statements are generally accompanied by words such as “estimated”, “projected”, “potential”, “anticipated”, “forecasted” or other words that convey the uncertainty of future events or outcomes. Although we believe the expectations and forecasts reflected in these and other forward-looking statements are reasonable, we can give no assurance they will prove to have been correct. These statements are based on our current plans and assumptions and are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties such as potential litigation as further outlined in our most recent 10-K and 10-Q. Therefore, the actual results may differ materially from the expectations, estimates or assumptions expressed in or implied by any forward-looking statement made by or on behalf of the Company. Cautionary Note to U.S. Investors –The SEC has recently modified its rules regarding oil and gas reserve information that may be included in filings with the SEC. The newly applicable rules allow oil and gas companies to disclose not only proved reserves, but also probable and possible reserves that meet the SEC’s definitions of such terms. We disclose proved, probable and possible reserves in our filings with the SEC. Our reserves as of June 30, 2011 were estimated by DeGolyer & MacNaughton, W.D Von Gonten & Co. (“Von Gonten”), and Lee Keeling and Associates, Inc. (“Keeling”), independent petroleum engineering firms. In this presentation, we make reference to probable reserves. These estimates are by their nature more speculative than estimates of proved reserves and are subject to greater uncertainties, and accordingly the likelihood of recovering those reserves is subject to substantially greater risk. Please see Appendix.

2

3

Four Factors for Repeating Success and Building Value per Share Every Day

Innovative Engineering

Redeploying Internal

Cashflows

Known Oil Fields

Building Value per

Share Staff Fully Aligned with Shareholders

4

Name/Title Background Achievements

Robert Herlin CEO & Chairman

Co-founded EPM in 2003 using $8.3 MM in capital (multiple raises). B.S. and M.E. Chemical Engineering, Rice University. MBA, Harvard

30 years leadership experience in M&A, development, operations and finance in public and private sectors.

Sterling McDonald Chief Financial Officer

Joined EPM 2003. B.S. and MBA (University of Tulsa)

Former CFO for PetroAmerican Services, PetroStar Energy and Treasurer for Reading & Bates Corporation.

Daryl Mazzanti VP-Operations

Joined EPM mid-2005 B.S. Petroleum Engineering, Univ. of Oklahoma

Former Manager of US Business Development for Anadarko. Former Production Manager, Austin Chalk for Anadarko/UPRC responsible for 1200 wells, staff of 65 and 25,000 BOEPD of production. Innovator in horizontal drilling

Edward Schell General Manager for Drilling and Unconventional Development

Joined EPM in 2006 B.S. in Petroleum Engineering, University of Texas

30 years experience in oil & gas industry. Management positions in drilling, operations and business development with Anadarko Petroleum. Drilled 800 wells, 200 of them horizontal and 2/3rd in unconventional reservoirs.

-$100

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

Initial Investment Cash Proved Reserves Probable Reserves Total Value

Tota

l Val

ue

, $M

M

5

$461 MM

Transformed $8.3 MM Investment into $461 MM PV10 + WC

Notes: (1) Delhi PV10 values based on report from independent reserve engineers, DeGolyer & MacNaughton, and includes proved and probable reserves as of 6/30/2011 at SEC pricing of $94.81/bbl. (2) Giddings properties are being evaluated for monetization.

LLS at $111.47 on 8/7/2012

$72 MM

$375 MM

$13.6 MM

6

0

5

10

15

20

25

MMBoe

Reserves (84% Oil)

Proved PUD Probable

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

$16,000$M

Revenue (Years ended June 30)

9 months

7

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$M

Quarterly Net Income to Common

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000$M

Quarterly Revenue

Delhi Field - Producing CO2 EOR - 100% oil

10.9 MMBO Proved

5.8 MMBO Probable

41% of 2P is developed producing

Giddings Field – Producing Horizontal wells in naturally fractured

Austin Chalk, Georgetown, Buda

plus Woodbine potential.

2.7 MMBOE Proved, 15% developed

and 47% oil & NGL

S Lopez Field – Producing Vertical redevelopment of

previous waterflood, 100% oil

8

Ms Lime – Drilling Began May 2012 24,000 gross (11,940 net) acres in JV

45% non-op share of JV held by EPM

25-33 net potential oily drilling locations

Note: all reserves as of 6/30/2011

9

$35.8

$266.0

$375.3

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

2009 2010 2011

$MM SEC Pretax PV10

84%

5% 11%

13.8 MMBOE Proved Reserves

Oil NGL Natural Gas

Application of Strengths to Grow Oil Production, Reserves and Value

11

Phase 1: “Form the Base” Acquired and farmed-out Delhi, commenced EOR. Negative cash flow and no earnings.

Phase 2: “Positioning for Growth” Delhi net proceeds reinvested into shale gas and oil projects. Breakeven cash flow and no earnings.

Phase 3: “Invest for Growth” Delhi and Giddings cash flow reinvested into oil projects and GARP™ technology. Growing operating cash flow and earnings.

Phase 4: “Consistent Growth” Ongoing development drilling to grow production, reserves and cash flow. Grow the franchise.

12

Onshore US Engineering Driven HZ Drilling Potential Repeatable Results Oil Weighted Known Oil & Gas Fields

Grow Value Per-Share

Our Foundation Asset CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery

14

Gross cum production 192 MMBO

Current production ~5,300 BOPD (qtr ended 6/30)

6/30/2011 Reserves 10.9 MMBO Proved 5.8 MMBO Probable (41% of 2P producing) 30% of 2P from royalty interest & free of exp.

Projected EOR recovery (% of OOIP)

13% Proved (PV10: $334 MM) 4% Probable (PV10: $ 73 MM)

Unit size 13,366 acres

Tax preferences Severance tax holiday

Acquired by EPM in 2003 Acquired for $2.8 MM Invested $2.5 MM Subsequently added royalty interests for $1.5 MM

Farm-out to DNR in mid-2006 Received $50 MM + EOR Development + Reversionary interest

Upside Potential More OOIP Higher EOR % recovery Utilization of lower cost (CO2 + water) injection process

Low-Risk Cash Flow for Reinvestment into Growth Assets

Delhi

Jackson Dome

15

• EPM receives 7.4% of gross revenues

• No Cap Ex or Op Ex…forever

• Exempt from state severance tax until project payout of all actual costs plus capital cost

• Royalty interest = 30% of total Delhi reserves volumes

• Delhi crude priced at LA Light Sweet (premium to WTI)

7.4% Royalty Interest

• Calendar YE 2013 payout = projected net field cumulative cash flow of $200 million

• Net field cash flow = revenue minus field Op Ex (including CO2)

• After payout, EPM bears pro-rata CapEx and Op Ex and will own proportional field assets, reserves and purchased CO2

• EPM projected to bear ~$12.7 MM total CapEx for proved reserves APO

23.9% Reversionary

Working Interest

Free Cash Flow

16

Denbury plans to invest $64 MM in 2012 to expand flood.

Develop three patterns, build additional facilities.

2011 Activity expansion

2011 Activity

2010 Activity

2009 Activity

2012E Activity

Source: Denbury Resources Inc. Fall Analyst Meeting, November 14, 2011.

17

Note: Based on report from independent reserve engineers, DeGolyer & MacNaughton, and includes proved and probable reserves as of 6/30/2011 at SEC pricing of $94.81/bbl.

LLS at $111.47 on 8/7/2012

$(10)

$-

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

$MM

Calendar

Royalty Reversionary WI

18

$-

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

$800,000

$900,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

$M

Remaining PV10 Cum PretaxNotes: Residual PV10 is the PV10 of remaining cash flows from given year to project end. Includes proved and probable reserves from independent report of 6/30/2011 at SEC pricing of $94.81/bbl.

LLS at $111.47 on 8/7/2012

$7

$8

$9

$10

$11

$12

$13

$14

40 50 60 70 80

$/ FD Share

Gross Recovery in MMBO

PV10* vs Gross Oil Recovery (flat pricing)

1P

2P

19

$-

$4

$8

$12

$16

$20

$- $20 $40 $60 $80 $100

$ / diluted share

2012 LLS Oil Price

PV10* vs 2012 LLS Oil Price

2P PV10 Esc @ 3% inflation

2P PV10 SEC Flat

* From independent report of 6/30/2011 including proved and probable reserves at SEC pricing of $94.81/bbl. Escalated pricing analysis begins with 6/30/11 SEC price. Diluted shares include 5.5 MM options and warrants without effect of exercise proceeds.

Impact of Additional EOR Recovery on EPM Share Price

LLS Oil Price Impact on EPM Share Price

EPM @$8.32 (8/7/2012)

EPM @$8.32 LLS @ $111.47

Growing Per-Share Value

Fits selection criteria:

Oil-prone, horizontal drilling, onshore U.S., IRR>30%, known oil field, accessible, running room, repeatable

Kay County, Oklahoma

24,000 gross (11,940 net to JV) acres

45% share of JV

25 net probable drilling locations (8 more potential)

Horizontal drilling in area previously developed with

vertical wells – RRC and DVN active in Kay County

Drilling and completion cost per well ~$3MM, including water disposal

Running room with multi-year development

JV increasing its leasehold through pending bolt-on acquisitions

Investment sink for Delhi cash flow – develop ~3-5 barrels of oil reserves from 1 barrel of Delhi production and fully utilize intangible drilling tax deduction

1st Ms Lime well drilled and waiting on frac, 2nd well drilling, 1st SWD well completed

21

22

Joint venture acreage in oil-prone area, east of the Nemaha ridge.

Multi-year visible growth potential for reinvesting early Delhi free cash flow.

E P M

Devon, Calyx, Pablo, PQ, Range, Ram, SDR, Spyglass, Century, Territory, Vitruvian

Calyx, Pablo, Range, Redfork, Spyglass,

Territory

CHK, SDR, Vitruvian, PQ

CHK, Chaparral, Eagle, SDR

Spyglass, Vitruvian, Orion, Century

SD, PQ

D

E

V

O

N

H

K

DVN &

Sinopec

23

Mississippian Lime is well

defined by old vertical

wells

Numerous vertical logs show

thick, continuous pay

Interpretation of well data

and logs shows geologic

continuity with offset wells

Vertical average EURS:

Kay County: 97 MBOE

Osage County: 80 MBOE

Cowley County: 60 MBOE

Horizontal Results:

Vitruvian Bowling 2-32H

IP: 500+ Boepd, ~3,000'

lateral

Spyglass Shaw 1A-8H

IP: 500+ Boepd, 2,228' lateral

EPM

Vitruvian Bowling 2-32H IP 500+ Bopd

Spyglass Shaw 1A-8HZ

2,228' Miss Lime Hz 500+ Bopd

Spyglass Bird Creek 1A-15H

IP 210 Bopd

Range Resources Type Curve EUR Now 600 MBoe

Territory Beast 1-27H

IP 500-600 Bopd

Pablo Gilbert 1H-32 IP 657 Bopd

24

Assumptions:

EUR: 268 MBOE (75% oil)

$3 MM drilling and completion cost

Includes SWD facilities

Rich gas is minor element

Commodity prices: WTI $85/Bbl (before $5 differential)

Natural gas rising from $2.50 to $4.00/MMBtu by 2014 (then flat)

IRR > 30% at base case EUR

Range recently upped their Kay County well estimates to 600 MBOE for 4,000’ laterals

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 40 80

BO

EPD

Month

Estimated Mississippian Lime Type Curves by Operator Range 485 MBOE SDR 450 MBOE EPM JV 268 MBOE

EPM assumes a declining GOR, thus initial BOE decline rate appears higher and with more

0%

100%

200%

300%

400%

$40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90 $100 $110

Ms Lime Sensitivity IRR vs Wellhead Oil Price

EPM Base Case 267MBOEIndustry 400 MBOE

Mirando sandstone within previous waterflood

Moving into development phase after extensive research and testing for re-injection of produced water

Developing 10-20 BOPD per well of long life, low decline production at a cost of ~$550K per well, or $35K to $70K per net BOPD

3 test producers drilled to date confirming oil cut and capability of high fluid rate production and injection

Goal and upside is in expanding from current ~38 drilling locations

25

8,154 net acres

Net production ~190 BOEPD, current and average for fiscal 2012

Proved undeveloped reserves in 9 drilling locations

Reserves in Georgetown, Austin Chalk and Buda formations

Exposure to new Woodbine oil play in retained 1,100 net acres and royalty interest in 900 net acres

Transitional asset, candidate for harvest

~44% oil and NGL content by volumes

26

Innovation for Increasing Recovery

Reestablishes economic production of the “Tail”

Supplements & enhances existing rod pump

Mobilizes remaining fluid to rod pump inlet

Successful applications in Giddings Field

Three commercial installations completed demonstrating success

Fee/participation for service model

28

BEFORE: Conventional Rod Pump

Either fluid level eventually drops to a level where rod pump or gas lift are no longer effective, or

Fluid production in gas well builds and eventually shuts off gas production

This can leave substantial volumes of oil and gas unrecovered (the “Tail”)

AFTER: GARP™

Adds substantial new reserves at low cost

Benefit = up to 25% incremental recovery

Benefit = extends life of lease(s)

Cost $75K - $150K per application

Patented

29

30

1

10

100

9/14/2011 11/3/2011 12/23/2011 2/11/2012 4/1/2012 5/21/2012

MC

F o

r B

blS

per

DA

Y

GIDDINGS FIELD, TX (AUSTIN CHALK) HZ WELL

GARPTM

installed

Average pdn

Conservative, Strong and Aligned

32

0%

15%

49% 48%

43% 42%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

EPM

AR

EX

REN

WR

ES

DN

R

PQ

Debt to Market Cap

$-

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

Resources FQ4 Capex

$MM Liquidity – Sources & Uses

4 FQFQCFFO

3/31/12 W/C

Credit Line

+ FQ4 CFFO

$

$

$

$

2012

2013

2014

2015

Free Cash Flows to be

Redeployed

GARP™

New Mississippian Lime

Oil Project

S. Texas Oil Expansion

33

34

-$100

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

Investment Cash ProvedPV10

Delhi (1)

ProbablePV10

Delhi (1)

ProvedPV10

Giddings (2)

ProvedPV10Lopez

TotalValue

Market Cap(8/7/2012)

(3)

Tota

l Val

ue

, $M

M

$231 MM Gap to NAV

$230 MM

$461 MM

LLS at $111.47 on 8/7/2012

Notes: (1) Delhi PV10 values based on report from independent reserve engineers, DeGolyer & MacNaughton, and includes proved and probable reserves as of 6/30/2011 at SEC pricing of $94.81/bbl. (2) Giddings properties are being evaluated for monetization. (3) Market capitalization based on 27.82 MM shares outstanding.

35

-$2

$0

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

$14

$16

Investment Cash ProvedPV10Delhi

ProbablePV10Delhi

ProvedPV10

Giddings

ProvedPV10Lopez

TotalValue

Share Price(8/7/2012)

Tota

l Val

ue

Pe

r Sh

are

$5.57 Gap to NAV

$8.32

$13.89

Note: Per-share values are based on 33.2 MM diluted shares. PV10 from 6/30/11 reserves report, Delhi at $94.81/bbl.

LLS at $111.47 on 8/7/2012

36

Cashflow “Annuity” & debt free = continued growth w/o shareholder dilution

$230 MM value gap between intrinsic and market value (before inclusion of Ms Lime, Lopez & GARP)

Premium oil focused reserves (84% oil on Gulf Coast, mostly LLS priced)

New exposure to oily Mississippian Lime Play (excellent economics)

GARP™ upside (harvesting the “tails”)

Balance sheet aligned with business strategy (conservative, internally funded)

Employees beneficially own 20% of diluted shares – totally aligned with accretive growth per share