Slide 1: San Andres Horizontal Well Analysis
EON Resources Inc. NYSE American: EONR San Andres Horizontal Well Analysis February 2025
Slide 2: Grayburg-Jackson Field San Andres Horizontal Well Productivity Analysis
February 20, 2025 Grayburg - Jackson Field San Andres Horizontal Well Productivity Analysis 2
Slide 3: San Andres Horizontal Development
• To date there have been no San Andres horizontal wells drilled in the Grayburg - Jackson (G - J) Field immediate area • A comparison of the OIP and expected EUR per foot of lateral from the open hole logs in the G - J Field was made between actual EUR/ft data from the State Line Area (closest majo
Slide 4: Grayburg-Jackson Field State Line Area Field Locations
Grayburg - Jackson Field State Line Area 4 Field Locations 4
Slide 5: State Line Area EUR vs Offset Open Hole Log EUR
Log Producer 10% recovery factor reasonable Supports 1320ft spacing and 200 ft drainage “h” State Line Area EUR vs Offset Open Hole Log EUR 5
Slide 6: State Line Type Log
EUR ac lat 15% RF OIP TOTAL FVF BOIP/Acre Sw PHI H Base Pay Top Pay 508,673 227 7,494 769,322 5,128,812 1.15 22,585 0.331 0.074 67.625 5397.75 5300 9.9% ACTUAL RF 68 BO/ft log derived EUR/Field average 79.4 BO/ft 42 - 501 - 33538 COX HEIRS 1 State Line Type Log 6
Slide 7: G-J Field Type Log
EUR - CUM EUR/FT 15% RF EUR BOIP 40 BOIP/Acre Sw PHI H Base Pay Top Pay 147 213 1,066,708 7,111,384 46,785 0.355 0.063 163.25 4349 4150 147 BO/ft vs 151 BO/ft average for first 12 wells Proposed Landing 30 - 015 - 28387 West B 85 G - J Field Type Log 7
Slide 8: San Andres State Line Area Offset Producers Production
7494 ft lateral/67.2 BO/ft EUR/Field average 79.4 BO/ft San Andres State Line Area Offset Producers Production 8
Slide 9: State Line Area well EUR table
EUR/FT EUR GAS EUR Oil CumOil CumGas API GPI Completion TVD_FT FirstProd WellName API_UWI 142.0 4,988,037 1,069,808 310,009 993,025 34 7534 11/1/2018 5365 11/1/2018 ONE EYED JOHN 522 35H 42 - 501 - 37037 127.0 1,262,455 645,452 181,241 466,846 31 5082 4/6/2020 5376 4/1/2020 SQUINTS 523 6H 42 - 501 -
Slide 10: Size of the Prize
• State Line Area production analysis indicates an average EUR of 79.4 BO/ft • If this is applied to G - J Field 5,000 ft laterals a 397,000 BO EUR can be assumed for base case economics and total recovery estimates • State Line Area analog results should be a reasonable first estimate of the P90 or
Slide 11: Preliminary Lateral Landing Analyses
• With the heterogeneity of the reservoir “pods” a more accurate estimate was done for specific lateral trajectories adjacent to well control points vs all measure points with the 138 well stats • The average EUR/ft for all wells along path was used for the lateral EUR/ft with a minimum of 3 wells n
Slide 12: Triple Combo Well Data Spots and Top 12 Locations
Wells in Remaining 15% OIP XSEC EUR BO EUR/FT BOIP/Acre XSEC Rank 6 1,280,672 256 363 18C 1 4 868,900 174 250 21A 2 3 806,952 161 233 10A 3 5 734,072 147 213 9A 4 3 723,140 145 210 19A 5 3 708,564 142 206 19B 6 4 704,920 141 205 9B 7 3 701,276 140 204 16C 8 5 672,124 134 196 20B 9 3 624,752 125 183
Slide 13: Analysis Model
• Recovery factor analysis in the State Line Area indicated 1320 ft spacing four wells per section should provide unhindered production • OIP was estimated from a 200 ft producing height with 50 ft below and 150 ft above the lateral being drained • The OIP per foot was estimated from the average of
Slide 14: Analysis Model
1320 ft OIP = 4 well average * 151.5 acres Recoverable oil = OIP x 15% Subtract total cumulative production Well B OIP/acre point Well C OIP/acre point Well A OIP/acre point 5000 ft Well D OIP/acre point Analysis Model 14
Slide 15: Analysis Model continued
• In wells where the operator came up hole and added the Seven Rivers to marginal San Andres/Grayburg completions the cumulative production subsequent to the addition of the SVRV was deducted from the total cumulative production reported for the well • Average production from the San Andres & Graybu
Slide 16: Jackson & Slaughter Recovery Factor Analysis
Assumes 100% of the Grayburg & San Andres production comes from the Jackson and Slaughter targets Actual Jackson & Slaughter recovery factor lower than 5.1% Jackson & Slaughter Recovery Factor Analysis San Andres/Grayburg total production vs total OIP Total % of total Total h RF Cum Cum 640 OIP/ac 4
Slide 17: San Andres/Grayburg Recovery Factor Analysis
• The 5.1% recovery factor highlights the significant volumes of stranded oil in the San Andres given the expected maximum recovery for a field under waterflood can be as high as 30% • This recovery factor is likely the most significant statistic justifying potential development of the Jackson & Sla
Slide 18: 138 Well Individual EUR/ft Distribution
- 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 P50 141 BO/ft 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Total EUR/ft need to subtract for remaining oil 160 “Apples to apples” to compare to 79.1 BO/ft from State Line wells used for project economics 138 Well Individual EUR/ft Distribution 18
Slide 19: Remaining EUR/ft vs Total EUR/ft
Original OIP/ft Can use to adjust total EUR for cumulative withdrawals Consistent with 5.1% recovery factor and approximately 2/3 of the oil remaining from above Remaining OIP/ft y = 0.7288x - 8.4219 R² = 0.835 200.0 180.0 160.0 140.0 120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 25
Slide 20: Economic Analysis
• AFE $3.75MM for 5,000 ft laterals • Using the average EUR/ft from the analog field with significantly lower volumetric reserves results in a 397 MBO expected minimum recovery • PV0 total cash flow for 397 MBO $12.42 MM NPV10 $6.6 MM ROI 3.3:1 IRR 120.1% • No upside to 15% recovery assumed for pres
Slide 21: Horizontal well drilling and completion design
• Horizontal wells will be drilled from East to West between rows of injectors and improved recoveries are expected over historical vertical producer - injector patterns in the laterally heterogeneous reservoir • East to West trajectory (updip) proposed to facilitate toe up trajectory • Standard plu
Slide 22: Example Jackson-Slaughter Structure Map and Well Control
Example Jackson - Slaughter Structure Map and Well Control 22
Slide 23: Hydraulic Fracture Azimuth Issues
• Primary concern is the direction of the hydraulic fracture once it turns away from the initial longitudinal phase into the transverse phase • State Line Area wells are drilled N - S while deeper wells below the G - J Field are drilled E - W • It is assumed that the G - J Field E - W azimuth wells
Slide 24: Hydraulic Fracture Azimuth Issues continued
• It is unlikely that the deeper Paddock wells below the G - J Field San Andres reservoir have these issues and that we will have transverse fractures • It is possible that they are not perpendicular, though, as we are in - between data points in the “Leading Edge” study on the following slide • The
Slide 25: G-J State Line Hydraulic Fracture Azimuth Map Permian Basin
G - J State Line Hydraulic Fracture Azimuth Map Permian Basin 25 25
Slide 26: G-J State Line Hydraulic Fracture Azimuth SE New Mexico
Should verify with diagnostics and well records Important to avoid fracture driven interactions in offset existing wells G - J State Line Hydraulic Fracture Azimuth SE New Mexico 26
Slide 27: Vertical Pilot Test
• Prior to the first lateral, a vertical well completion is proposed with perforations in the proposed landing zone to further derisk the laterals • There are a number of candidates in the field with unperforated lower San Andres in the column • All of the upper perforations would be mechanically is
Slide 28: HE West B 61 Proposed Vertical Pilot
Unperforated 15% RF EUR BOIP 152 BOIP/Acre Sw PHI H Base Pay Top Pay 209,431 1,396,209 34,905 0.271 0.073 93 4013.5 3832.5 HE West B 61 Proposed Vertical Pilot 28
Slide 29: Summary San Andres Horizontal Development
• To date there have been no San Andres horizontal wells drilled in the Loco Hills immediate area • From the data presented, we believe the primary reason that there are no laterals is simply because no one has attempted it to date • There is always risk but the technical details presented here for
Slide 30: Grayburg-Jackson Field Workstation Update
Towards Characterization and Lateral Selection for the Jackson and Slaughter Section February 20, 2025 Grayburg - Jackson Field Workstation Update: 30
Slide 31: 3D visualization of estimated EUR at key well data points
3D visualization of estimated EUR at key well data points. (Bubble size is proportional to EUR. Also see color bar) 31 31
Slide 32: 3D visualization of estimated EUR
3D visualization of estimated EUR (Model is rotated in 3 - D to illustrate the prospectivity between different Markers) 32
Slide 33: East-West Cross-Section
W 33 E East - West Cross - Section (illustrating the Integration of Stratigraphic, Structural and Petrophysical for identification most prospective intervals)
Slide 34: Interpolation of point data to visualize inter-well space
W E Interpolation of “point” data in previous slide to visualize inter - well space 34
Slide 35: Identification of potential wellpaths
Identification of potential wellpaths (black lines and x) through most prospective intervals for further evaluation and high - grading 35
Slide 36: Example Steps in the Workflow
• Well by well review of cross - sections • Refinement of logs if/as necessary • Gridding of Petrophysical properties by Zone • Initial lateral identification • Review alternate volumetric methodologies • Continuously update and improve the Database Example steps in the Workflow 36
Slide 37: Q&A and Closing Comments
Q&A and Closing Comments
Slide 38: Disclaimer
Disclaimer • This presentation of EON Resources Inc . (“EON” or the “Company”) shall not constitute a “solicitation” as defined in Rule 14 a - 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 , as amended . • This presentation is not an offer, or a solicitation of an offer, to buy or sell any investment or
Slide 39: Disclaimer
Disclaimer • The financial information and data contained in this presentation is unaudited and does not conform to Regulation S - X promulgated by the SEC . Accordingly, such information and date may not be included in, may be adjusted in, or may be presented differently in, any proxy statement, pr
Slide 40: Disclaimer - Forward-Looking Statements
Disclaimer • Forward - Looking Statements • Statements in this presentation which are not statements of historical fact are “forward - looking statements” . Our forward - looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements regarding our or our management team’s expectations, hopes, belief
Slide 41: Disclaimer
Disclaimer • In preparing this presentation, the Company has substantially and materially relied on the Evaluations of Certain Oil and Gas Properties ("reserve reports") rendered by William M . Cobb & Associates, Inc . ("Cobb"), an unrelated third party that had previously been engaged and compensat