CORPORATE PRESENTATION

June 2016

Corporate Information • Current Production 1. (2) See discussion on “Potential drilling locations” in the Advisories section of this presentation.200 boepd (includes 13-19. Page 2 .2 (189. 8-18.8% (16.2%) (1) See “Oil and Gas Metrics” in the Advisories section of this presentation.Gross (Net) sections 178 (160) • Estimated average OGIP (1) per section in gas window 40 bcf • Liquids-rich development locations delineated . & 8-22) • Cash and working capital as of March 31.100 boepd • Production tested and not tied-in 2.Gross (Net) (2) 160 (128) • Total potential locations – Gross (net)(2) 500+ (467+) • Average drill and complete cost < $4 million • Average EUR (1) per liquids-rich gas well 900 mboe • Capacity of operated facilities (connected to Alliance) 25 mmcf/d • Shares outstanding (diluted) 165. 2016 $53 million (includes $12 million new gas plant equipment for sale) • Dawson and Area Montney land .3) • Management & directors shareholdings (diluted) 7.

Two Rivers C4-19.290 boepd (1) • Development inventory of 160 16-30 gross (128 net) wells (2) 13-7 MICA Mica – Delineation • Drilled 3 Lower Montney Turbidite wells to date: Delineate • 13-7 Light oil (IP30 447 boepd. 60% oil) 8-22 • 8-18 Liquids-rich gas (Test (1) 8-18 rate of 375 boepd) • 8-22 Light oil (Test rate of 712 Doe boepd 50% oil)(1) b4-19 13-19 Two Rivers – Exploration Develop • Vertical test drilled (results not c4-19 disclosed) • One additional vertical test scheduled for 2016 Legend Leucrotta Land (1) See the Advisories section of this presentation for details on test rates. Upper and Lower Montney 3 Distinct Areas: Develop/Delineate/Explore Doe – Development • Drilled 3 Lower Montney Turbidite wells to date (B4-19. Page 3 . (2) See “Potential drilling locations” in the Advisories section of this presentation. 13-19) • Recently announced 13-19 tested Explore at 1.

Lower Montney Turbidite Play NW Alberta – NEBC • Pervasive deposit spans townships of land Two Rivers BC AB. Coupe Gordondale Lower Montney Fairway Page 4 . • Developed more extensively in Alberta side • Recent drilling in BC proves high productivity of liquids-rich gas 13-7 • LXE 13-07 oil discovery & 8-22 oil Mica delineation Tower 8-22 Doe 8-18 Lower Montney Fairway b4-19 13-19 Parkland c4-19 Legend Sunrise Dawson Leucrotta Land Lower Montney Producers P.

see “Oil and Gas Metrics” in the Advisories section of this presentation.4 F&D ($/boe) 5.62/GJ AECO. (3) For definitions. FX 1. ($/boe/d) 8.500 Liquids Gas Total Year 1 Avg. Q-12mo. Lower Montney Results vs. Eff.00/bbl WTI. $2.806 Notes: (1) See “Type curves” in the Advisories section of this presentation (2) Economics based on a Jan 2016 start date using GLJ current price forecast ($US 44. Expectation (1) Montney Hz Well Performance Indicator Type Well Drill & Case ($K) 2.06 Cap. Page 5 .620 IRR (%) (3) 71 Payout (yrs) 1.000 Complete ($K) 2. Q (boe/d) 138 373 511 EUR (3) (mboe) 185 703 888 GLJ Pricing(2) NPV10 ($K)(3) 5.100 Tie-in ($K) 400 Total ($K) 4.120 PV10 ($K)(3) 9.38 for 2016).

Lower Montney Sensitivity * * Based on drill. complete and equip costs (DC&E) of $4.5 million per well vs pad drilling estimated at $3.7 million DC&E per well Page 6 .

00 6.0 9. Lower Montney Turbidite Comparison British Columbia Alberta Leucrotta Doe Greater Town Greater Septimus Greater Swan Greater Pouce Coupe Greater Kakwa Economic .Assumptions Lower Montney TD Focus Area 1 TD Focus Area 2 Turbidite Play TD Focus Area 3 TD Focus Area 4 TD Focus Area 5 Well Cost ($mm) 7.0 5. 2015 Page 7 .40 3.BTAX* 13% 84% 123% 63% 41% 27% NPV .BTAX ($mm)* 0.1 6.067 NGL Yield (bbl/mmcf) 20 25 44 5 20 100 % Liquids 11% 13% 21% 3% 11% 38% EUR (mboe) 699 1.030 747 1.00 for natural gas Source: TD Securities ‘Show Me the Montney’ report.0 5.0 4.90 * assumes flat realized pricing of Cdn $50 for oil and Cdn $3.30 3.261 722 953 IRR .20 5. October 6.113 879 1.90 7.0 IP30 (boe/d) 700 920 1.000 1.

October 6. Doe Lower Montney vs Other Montney TD Montney Focus Areas High IRR & EUR TD Focus Area Area # 1 (Greater Town) Area # 2 (Greater Septimus) Area # 3 (Greater Swan) Area # 4 (Greater Pouce Coupe) Area # 5 (Greater Kakwa) Area # 6 (Doe Lower Montney) 6 Source: TD Securities ‘Show Me the Montney’ report. 2015 Page 8 .

Infrastructure and Take-Away INFRASTRUCTURE • 25 mmcf/d sweet gas plant Spectra/Westcoast • 63 mmcf/d Alliance meter Gathering Line station • Licensed salt water disposal well Leucrotta • Licensed acid gas inj. well Gathering Lines TAKE-AWAY Alliance Pipeline • 5 year firm transportation on Alliance (15 mmcf/d escalating to 33 mmcf/d) • Up to 60 mmcf/d AECO AltaGas based gas purchase Pouce Coupe Plant Spectra Spectra arrangement McMahon Plant Doe Plant • Aux Sable contract for NGL’s NGTL • Potential future Pembina pipeline connection Westcoast Leucrotta Legend Transmission 13-24 Plant Leucrotta Land Spectra Gas Plant Pouce Coupe Plant Page 9 .

(2) See “Potential drilling locations” in the Advisories section of this presentation.5 billion barrels of OOIP(3) and 3. Page 10 . Why Leucrotta? • Low capital costs combined with high IPs and high EURs make the Lower Montney Turbidite play one of the highest ROR projects in North America(1) • High GOR light oil and liquids-rich gas places Leucrotta’s lands in the sweet spot of the play • Over 500 possible Montney locations (2) • High production rates per well will allow rapid growth • Extensive land base (160 net sections) with potentially over 1. (3) See “Oil and Gas Metrics” in the Advisories section of this presentation.5 tcf of OGIP(3) (plus NGLs) • Fully funded to carry out delineation and development programs (1) Source: RBC Capital Markets: “North American Resource Play Economics”.

including expectations and assumptions relating to prevailing commodity prices and exchange rates. and debt levels. environmental risks. the risks associated with the oil and gas industry in general such as operational risks in development. Since forward- looking statements and information address future events and conditions. These include. costs and expenses. Forward Looking Information This document contains forward-looking statements and forward-looking information within the meaning of applicable securities laws. applicable royalty rates and tax laws. The forward-looking statements and information contained in this document are made as of the date hereof for the purpose of providing the readers with the Company’s expectations for the coming year. The use of any of the words “expect”. “intends”. “guidance” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements or information. oil. The Company undertakes no obligation to update publicly or revise any forward- looking statements or information. Page 11 . The forward-looking statements and information are based on certain key expectations and assumptions made by the Company. Although the Company believes that the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements and information are reasonable. delays or changes in plans with respect to exploration or development projects or capital expenditures. whether as a result of new information. and natural gas commodity prices. capital programs. marketing and transportation. “should”. The forward-looking statements and information may not be appropriate for other purposes. “estimate”. “anticipate”. “continue”. “will”. NGLs. future well production rates. exploration and production. Actual results may differ materially from those currently anticipated due to a number of factors and risks. the success of drilling new wells. by their very nature they involve inherent risks and uncertainties. oil. commodity price and exchange rate fluctuations. “may”. “believe”. “plans”. this document contains forward looking statements and information relating to the Company’s risk management program. the availability of capital to undertake planned activities and the availability and cost of labour and services. the ability to access sufficient capital from internal and external sources and changes in tax. it can give no assurance that such expectations will prove to be correct. competition. More particularly and without limitation. unless so required by applicable securities laws. the uncertainty of estimates and projections relating to production rates. the performance of existing wells. royalty and environmental legislation. future events or otherwise. but are not limited to. “forecast”. NGLs and natural gas production.

(ii) probable undeveloped locations. (iii) unbooked locations. is that quantity of petroleum that is estimated to exist originally in naturally occurring accumulations.Net Present Value is defined as “the present value of future cash flows minus the initial capital.Original Gas in Place and OOIP . particularly if used in isolation. This presentation contains metrics commonly used in the oil and gas industry.” Boe . only the following have been assigned reserves at December 31. 2015 as independently evaluated by GLJ. plus those estimated quantities in accumulations yet to be discovered (equivalent to “total resources”). “F&D” and “Capital Efficiency”. in accordance with National Instrument 51-101 (“NI 51-101”): 7 Proved Undeveloped 7 Probable Undeveloped The remaining 486+ potential/possible locations are unbooked.” IRR . and (iv) an aggregate total of (i). as of a given date. 2015 as independently evaluated by GLJ. Of the 500+ total potential/possible locations referenced in pages 2 and 10 of this presentation. The 160 total potential/possible locations referenced on pages 2 and 3 are a subset of the 500+ referenced above and represent those locations located within the “Development area” shown on the map on page 3.Estimated Ultimate Recovery is defined as “those quantities of petroleum which are estimated. There is no guarantee that such rates of return will be achieved in the future. particularly if used in isolation. Potential Drilling Locations This presentation discloses drilling locations in four categories: (i) proved undeveloped locations. or that can be derived from the metrics presented in this presentation should not be unduly relied upon. plus those quantities already produced therefrom. only the following have been assigned reserves at December 31. to be contained in known accumulations. to be potentially recoverable from an accumulation. Readers are cautioned that Boe may be misleading. The following oil and gas metrics have the following meanings as used in this presentation: NPV . such as “NPV”. on a given date. (ii) and (iii).Present Value is defined as “the present value of future cash flows. in accordance with NI 51-101: 7 Proved Undeveloped 7 Probable Undeveloped The remaining 146 locations are unbooked. prior to production. Readers are cautioned that the information provided by these metrics.” PV . All boe conversions in the report are derived by converting gas to oil at the ratio of six thousand cubic feet of natural gas to one barrel of oil equivalent. It includes that quantity of petroleum that is estimated. EUR . These terms do not have standardized meanings or standardized methods of calculation and therefore may not be comparable to similar measures presented by other companies. IRR is the discount rate required to arrive at a NPV equal to zero. Page 12 . “IRR”.Barrel of Oil Equivalent. Rates of return set forth in this presentation are for illustrative purposes. “Payout”. Advisories Oil and Gas Metrics OGIP .Internal Rate of Return. A boe conversion rate of 1 Boe: 6 Mcf is based on an energy equivalency conversion method primarily applicable at the burner tip and does not represent a value equivalency at the wellhead.Original Oil in Place are equivalent to Total Petroleum Initially In Place (“TPIIP”) TPIIP . “PV”.as defined in the Canadian Oil and Gas Evaluations Handbook (“COGEH”). Of those 160 potential locations. Boe may be misleading.

regulatory approvals. additional reservoir information that is obtained and other factors. The drilling locations on which the Company will actually drill wells. The well was production tested for 8 days and was producing at an average rate of 713 boepd ( 50% gas. and as depicted in this presentation. the majority of other unbooked drilling locations are farther away from existing wells where management has less information about the characteristics of the reservoir and therefore there is more uncertainty whether wells will be drilled in such locations and if drilled there is more uncertainty that such wells will result in additional oil and gas reserves. flowing wellhead pressure was stable and production rates were increasing. Page 13 . There is no certainty that the Company will drill all unbooked drilling locations and if drilled there is no certainty that such locations will result in additional oil and gas reserves. Test Results and Initial Production Rates Details on the test rates referenced on page 3 of this presentation are as follows: Test rates for the A13-19 Lower Montney Horizontal well were disclosed in a press release on April 27 2016. The Lower Montney Type Curve presented on page 5 of this presentation is an internal estimate prepared by a Qualified Reserves Evaluator (“QRE”) and is based on the long term performance of horizontal wells in the same Lower Montney formation and determined to be analogous to The Company’s wells. Test results and initial production rates disclosed herein may not necessarily be indicative of long term performance or of ultimate recovery. as such. Test rates for the 8-18 Lower Montney horizontal well were disclosed in a press release dated April 7 2015. including the number and timing thereof is ultimately dependent upon the availability of funding. Production type curves are based on a methodology of analog. At the end of the test. Readers are cautioned not to place reliance on such rates in calculating aggregate production for the Corporation. production and reserves information. At the end of the test. Some of this data may not have been prepared by qualified reserves evaluators. 18% Condensate). and such information has been updated as of the date hereof unless otherwise specified. Type Curves This Presentation contains references to type well. test rates. 13% Condensate). The well was production tested for 39 days and was produced at an average rate of 375 boepd ( 82% gas. 50% Oil and Condensate). Any references to peak rates. from available information respecting the well performance of other companies and . and the preparation of any estimates may not be in strict accordance with COGEH. oil and natural gas prices. may have been prepared based on internal estimates. or “type curve”. Test rates for the 8-22 Lower Montney horizontal well were disclosed in a press release on Feb 29 2016. engineering. At the end of the test. flowing wellhead pressure was stable and production rates were increasing. production and economics. excluding load fluid and energizing fluid at the end of the test. The Company believes that the provision of this analogous information is relevant to the Company’s oil and gas activities. such rates and declines are not determinative of the rates at which such wells will commence production and decline thereafter and are not indicative of long term performance or ultimate recovery. actual drilling results. seismic. Unbooked locations do not have attributed reserves or resources (including contingent and prospective). at least in part. given its acreage position and operations (either ongoing or planned) in the areas in question. excluding load fluid and energizing fluid at the end of the test. costs. Advisories Unbooked locations are based on the Company's prospective acreage and internal estimates as to the number of wells that can be drilled per section. including relative to current performance. While certain of the unbooked drilling locations have been de-risked by drilling existing wells in relative close proximity to such unbooked drilling locations. resources or production. Estimates by engineering and geo-technical practitioners may vary and the differences may be significant. IP30 or initial production rates or declines are useful for confirming the presence of hydrocarbons. A pressure transient analysis or well-test interpretation has not been carried out on these wells and thus certain of the test results provided herein should be considered to be preliminary until such analysis or interpretation has been completed. excluding load fluid and energizing fluid. The curve represents an internal “best-estimate” expectation. which are derived. however. is representative of The Company’s current program. empirical and theoretical assessments and workflow with consideration of the specific asset. The well was production tested for 68 hours and was producing 1290 boepd ( 87% gas. seasonal restrictions. Unbooked locations have been identified by management as an estimation of the Company's multi- year drilling activities based on evaluation of applicable geologic. resources or production. may be considered “analogous information” as defined in NI 51-101. flowing wellhead pressure and production rates were stable.

VP Exploration Kelvin B. CA .Sc. Medvedic. . P. Zakresky.VP Land Brian Krausert. B. Helmut R. CA Robert J. P.Sr. CA . Management & Directors Directors Management Robert J. CA Page 14 . P. R. P. MPAcc. M. . Terry L.D. P. Eng. Gilbert. Eng. LL.President and CEO John A. .VP Finance & CFO Daryl H.VP Operations and COO Donald Cowie Nolan Chicoine.VP Engineering Tom J. Trudeau. P. Brussa. Eckert..B. Johnston.A. B. Peter Cochrane. Geol..Sc. Land . (Rick) Sereda. Zakresky. Geol. Eng.