Salt Creek FieldSalt Creek Field C02 Flood PerformanceC02 Flood Performance

EORI –

Wyoming CO2 ConferenceJune 2009

James PageReservoir Engineer

EORI –

Wyoming CO2 ConferenceJune 2009

James PageReservoir Engineer

This presentation contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. Anadarko believes that its expectations are based on reasonable assumptions. No assurance, however, can be given that its goals will be achieved. A number of factors could cause actual results to differ materially from the projections, anticipated results or other expectations expressed in this release. While Anadarko makes these forward-looking statements in good faith, neither Anadarko nor its management can guarantee that the anticipated future results will be achieved. Anadarko discloses proved reserves that comply with the SEC's definitions. Additionally, Anadarko may disclose estimated recoverable reserves, which the SEC guidelines do not allow us to include in filings with the SEC. See Additional Factors Affecting Business in the Management's Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) included in the company's Annual Report on Form 10-K.

OutlineOutline

History Brief Overview of Salt Creek FieldCurrent CO2 DevelopmentQuestions

History Brief Overview of Salt Creek FieldCurrent CO2 DevelopmentQuestions

Anadarko’s Wyoming EOR Assets

Salt Creek

Monell

Sussex

16”

8”

Land GrantGas FieldsOil FieldsThird Party CO2

PipelineAPC CO2

Pipeline

FieldsMonell

Salt Creek

Pipelines33 mile, 8”

125 mile, 16”

CO2

SupplyXOM Shute Creek

Salt Creek HistorySalt Creek History

1908 – Dutch Company Strikes Oil at Salt Creek (WC1)

1917

– WC2 Discovered

1925 – Salt Creek Field Electrified

1939

– Salt Creek Light Oil Unit Formed

1962 –

1st

full Scale Waterflood

Development

2003

– CO2 Pilot Success

2004 –

1st CO2 Injection & Oil sales

(Phase 1)

SALT CREEKSOUTH UNIT

SALT CREEKLIGHT OIL UNIT

Phase 1 & 2

Phase3 & 4

Phase 5

Phase 6

Phase 7

FEET

0 5,013

OverviewOverview

Salt Creek FieldAsymmetrical Anticline1680 MMBO OOIPCum Production 683 MMBO 11 productive intervals & over 4000 wells

Anadarko acquired 2002

Wall Creek 2 (Primary Horizon)1099 MMBO OOIPCum Production 465 MMBOCompleted 6 of 16 development phases

Currently developing Phase 7

Salt Creek FieldAsymmetrical Anticline1680 MMBO OOIPCum Production 683 MMBO 11 productive intervals & over 4000 wellsAnadarko acquired 2002

Wall Creek 2 (Primary Horizon)1099 MMBO OOIPCum Production 465 MMBOCompleted 6 of 16 development phasesCurrently developing Phase 7

Future Development

Geologic OverviewGeologic Overview

WC2 Depth: 1500-3000’Thickness: 85’

Net

Average Φ: 19%Average K: 52 mdMarine Shoreface

WC2 Depth: 1500-3000’Thickness: 85’

Net

Average Φ: 19%Average K: 52 mdMarine Shoreface

OOIP: 328 MMBOCUML 121 MMBO

OOIP: 1099 MMBOCUML 465 MMBO

OutlineOutline

History Brief Overview of Salt Creek FieldCurrent CO2 DevelopmentQuestions

History History Brief Overview of Salt Creek FieldBrief Overview of Salt Creek FieldCurrent CO2 DevelopmentQuestions

WC2 COWC2 CO22

FloodFloodOil: 39o API MMP: 1,275 psi @ 105o

Miscible areas on flanksFlood Type: (WAG) Water Alternating Gas Producers: Flowing wells (against surface backpressure of 200 – 400 psi)

Oil: 39o API MMP: 1,275 psi @ 105o

Miscible areas on flanksFlood Type: (WAG) Water Alternating GasProducers: Flowing wells (against surface backpressure of 200 – 400 psi)

1718

19 20

2930

31 32

7 810 11 12

131415

22 23 24

252627

34 35 36

SALT CREEKLIGHT OIL UNIT

Phase 1 & 2

Phase3 & 4

Phase 5

Phase 6

Midwest

FEET

0 5,634

254 Patterns660 Active Wells

~8,000 BOPD from CO2

Salt Creek CO2 Flood Performance

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

Jan-0

4Apr

-04Ju

l-04

Oct-04

Jan-05

Apr-05

Jul-0

5Oct-

05Ja

n-06Apr-

06Ju

l-06

Oct-06

Jan-0

7Apr-0

7Ju

l-07

Oct-07

Jan-08

Apr-08

Jul-0

8Oct-

08Jan

-09Apr

-09

Gro

ss O

il Pr

oduc

tion

(BO

PD)

-

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

360

Tota

l CO

2 In

ject

ion

(MM

CFD

)

Oil Production BOPDCO2 Injection MMCFD

+ 8 MMBOE from Salt Creek CO2 flood+ 8 MMBOE from Salt Creek CO2 flood

Ph1-2 Commissioned

Ph3-4 Commissioned

Ph5 Commissioned

Ph6 Commissioned

Phase 1-2 Performing as ExpectedPhase 1-2 Performing as Expected

Phase 1-2 Response vs 20 and 40 Acre Model

Pore Volume Solvent Injected as % of Pore Volume

% O

OIP

Phase 1-2 Actual Performance

20 Acre Model

40 Acre Model

Reservoir Challenges

Density of CO2 in “Typical” CO2 Operating Environment is Much Closer to Oil and Water Density than in the Shallow Environment Low CO2 Density and Reduced Flood Front Velocity Promotes Gravity Override

Density of CO2 in “Typical” CO2 Operating Environment is Much Closer to Oil and Water Density than in the Shallow EnvironmentLow CO2 Density and Reduced Flood Front Velocity Promotes Gravity Override

Operating Pressure

Temperature CO2 Viscosity CO2 Density

1300 psia 105 deg F 0.031 cp 29.3 lb/cu ft

3200 psia 140 deg F 0.065 cp 46.8 lb/cu ft

High Gas Saturation

High Liquid Saturation

Reservoir Challenges

Volumetric Sweep Reduction is Magnified with Lower Viscosity/Higher Mobility Ratio WAG’s, Pattern Size

Volumetric Sweep Reduction is Magnified with Lower Viscosity/Higher Mobility RatioWAG’s, Pattern Size

Breakthrough

Schematic Depiction Stream Tubes1/4 5-Spot Symmetry Element

P

IInjector Producer

Operating Pressure

Temperature CO2 Viscosity CO2 Density

1300 psia 105 deg F 0.031 cp 29.3 lb/cu ft3200 psia 140 deg F 0.065 cp 46.8 lb/cu ft

Reservoir Management ToolsReservoir Management Tools

• Diligent Surveillance Necessary for Optimal Recovery• BHP Surveys• Injection Withdrawal Ratio (IWR) • Injection Processing Rate (PVI)• CO2

Utilization • Step Rate Tests• Injection Profiles• Tracer Surveys• Produced Fluid Temperature Monitoring• Automated well tests, and human QC (for proper

allocation where necessary to known data points)

• WAG Management

• Diligent Surveillance Necessary for Optimal Recovery• BHP Surveys• Injection Withdrawal Ratio (IWR) • Injection Processing Rate (PVI)• CO2

Utilization • Step Rate Tests• Injection Profiles• Tracer Surveys• Produced Fluid Temperature Monitoring• Automated well tests, and human QC (for proper

allocation where necessary to known data points)• WAG Management

Reservoir Management ToolsReservoir Management Tools

BHP~ Stay above miscibilityQuarterly BHP surveys

BHP~ Stay above miscibilityQuarterly BHP surveys

Datum BHP- Jan07

Datum BHP- Mar07

Datum BHP- Jun07

Datum BHP- Sep07

Datum BHP- Jan08

Datum BHP- Mar08

Datum BHP- Jun08

Datum BHP- Sept08

Datum BHP- Jan09

Reservoir Management ToolsReservoir Management Tools

BHP SurveysInjection Withdrawal Ratio (IWR) BHP SurveysInjection Withdrawal Ratio (IWR)

IWR by Phase

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

Jan-04

Apr-04

Jul-0

4Oct-

04Ja

n-05Apr-0

5Ju

l-05

Oct-05

Jan-06

Apr-06

Jul-0

6Oct-

06Ja

n-07

Apr-07

Jul-07

Oct-07

Jan-0

8Apr-0

8Jul-0

8Oct-0

8Jan

-09Apr-0

9Jul-

09Oct-0

9

IWR

(Res

bbl

/ R

es b

bl)

Ph 1_2Ph 3_4

Ph 5

Data is calculated from monthly volumes through March 2009 and daily volu mes used to ca lculate April 2009's vo lume.

Reservoir Management ToolsReservoir Management Tools

BHP SurveysInjection Withdrawal Ratio (IWR) Injection Processing Rate (PVI)

BHP SurveysInjection Withdrawal Ratio (IWR) Injection Processing Rate (PVI)

Monthly Fluid Processing Rate by Phase

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

Jan-04

Apr-04

Jul-0

4Oct-

04Ja

n-05Apr-0

5Ju

l-05

Oct-05

Jan-06

Apr-06

Jul-0

6Oct-

06Jan

-07Apr-0

7Ju

l-07

Oct-07

Jan-08

Apr-08

Jul-08

Oct-08

Jan-09

Apr-09

Jul-09

Oct-09

PVI (

CO

2 +

Wat

er In

ject

ion

as %

of P

V)

Ph 1_2

Ph 3_4

Ph 5

Data is calculated from monthly volumes through March 2009 and daily volu mes used to ca lculate April 2009's vo lume.

Reservoir Management ToolsReservoir Management Tools

BHP SurveysInjection Withdrawal Ratio (IWR) Injection Processing Rate (PVI)CO2

Utilization

BHP SurveysInjection Withdrawal Ratio (IWR) Injection Processing Rate (PVI)CO2

Utilization

Gross CO2 Utilization by Phase

-

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Time

Gro

ss C

O2

Utili

zatio

n (m

cf/b

bl)

P 1_2

P 3_4

P 5

Data is calculated from monthly volumes through March 2009 and daily volumes used to calculate April 2009's vo lume.

8 to W

8 to CO28 to W

Temperature Temperature response at producer response at producer

showing preferred showing preferred fluid pathsfluid paths

Further UnderstandingFurther Understanding

3D seismic acquired in 20054D seismic monitoring in Phase 5, baseline and 4 incremental time sequence snapshots collected WC2 core in Phase 5

Standard P&P

XRD/SEM: mineralogy & clay content

Thin sections: grain type/size. Cement, pore space, sorting…

Advanced SCAL: relative perms, saturations, capillary pressure, pore size distribution

Refining Geologic Model (Petrel)Reservoir Simulation (Nexus)

3D seismic acquired in 20054D seismic monitoring in Phase 5, baseline and 4 incremental time sequence snapshots collected WC2 core in Phase 5

Standard P&P

XRD/SEM: mineralogy & clay content

Thin sections: grain type/size. Cement, pore space, sorting…

Advanced SCAL: relative perms, saturations, capillary pressure, pore size distribution

Refining Geologic Model (Petrel)Reservoir Simulation (Nexus)

QuestionsQuestions

The past… Today