You are on page 1of 24

Integrated oil

Building on our success

John Brannan
Executive Vice-President and President, Integrated Oil Division
Investor Day | Calgary - June 17 | New York - June 21

Integrated oil overview


Foster Creek
Christina
•• Up to 12 months acceleration Lake
Region
of phase F
•• ~235,000 bbls/d (gross) of
planned development Oilsands leases
P&NG leases
Foster
Creek Christina Lake proper
Christina Lake Region
Foster Creek proper
ALBERTA
•• Up to 12 months acceleration Cenovus land at Dec. 31, 2009.
of phase E
•• ~258,000 bbls/d (gross) of
planned development
Overview of our industry leading Wood River
ILLINOIS
performance
Borger
Update Wood River CORE project TEXAS

Note: Timelines are subject to regulatory approvals.

1
Growth strategy
Driven by bitumen resource
•• Projects capable of supporting 20% CAGR through 2019
•• 56 Bbbls best estimate for discovered BIIP
•• 5.4 Bbbls best estimate for contingent resource

Supported by downstream heavy oil processing


•• 275,000 bbls/d post-CORE

La &
ke
k
Current
total heavy oil processing

tin ee
production

ris Cr
a
capacity

Ch ster
Base

Fo

Commerciality
growth plan

s Growth
ni l
rtu na
tie
po itio
Op Add

Long term plays

Cenovus SAGD operating experience


Mbbls/d
120

90 %
25
)~
––09
0 05
(2
R
60 AG
rC
5y

30

0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Q1
2010

Foster Creek Christina Lake

Production is shown before royalties and on a gross basis.

2
Foster Creek - leading the way

Foster Creek current phases


Pilot project began in 1996
Became the industry’’s first
commercial SAGD project in 2001
120,000 bbls/d of productive
capacity (phases A - E)
•• Largest producing SAGD
operation in Alberta
•• Currently producing more than
100,000 bbls/d from 160 wells
Pioneered use of wedge wells C$/bbl/d Capital efficiency
20,000
Achieved royalty payout in Feb 2010
Top tier performance
•• 2.3 –– 2.5 SOR
10,000
•• Leading capital efficiencies
•• $12.50 - 13.50/bbl operating
cost (2010F)
0
A B C D&E
Volumes are shown on a 100% basis. 20Mbbls/d 10Mbbls/d 30Mbbls/d 60Mbbls/d

3
Foster Creek future development
Total planned capacity of ~235,000 bbls/d
Phases F, G & H
•• Staged plant expansion west of phases A - E
•• Each expansion adds
30,000 bbls/d of productive
capacity
•• Regulatory approval
anticipated second half 2010
•• Up to 12 months
acceleration of phase F
•• Requires $76 million
(gross) in 2010F
Phase I now planned

Timelines are subject to regulatory approvals. Volumes are shown on a 100% basis.

Christina Lake - top tier reservoir

4
Christina Lake current phases
Pilot project began in 2000
First production in 2002
18,000 bbls/d of productive
capacity (phases A&B)
•• Currently producing
approximately 15,000 bbls/d
from 17 wells

Top tier performance C$/bbl/d


Capital efficiency

30,000

•• 2.1 –– 2.2 SOR


Leading capital efficiencies
20,000
••

•• $16.00 - 17.00/bbl operating 10,000

costs (2010F)
0
A&B CD&E
18Mbbls/d 120Mbbls/d
Volumes are shown on a 100% basis.

Christina Lake future development


Total planned capacity of ~258,000 bbls/d
Phases C –– G
•• Each expansion adds 40,000 bbls/d of productive capacity
•• Regulatory approval in place for phases C & D
•• Phase C construction ahead of schedule and on budget
•• Phase D under construction
•• Regulatory approval anticipated
for phases E –– G in 2011
•• Up to 12 months
acceleration of phase E

Phase H now planned

Timelines are subject to regulatory approvals. Volumes are shown on a 100% basis.

5
Project schedules
Regulatory First production Expected cumulative
Project phase
applications target production capacity (bbls/d)
Foster Creek
A-E Q1 1999 Q1 2002 120,000
F Q2 2009 2014F 150,000
G Q2 2009 2016F 180,000
H Q2 2009 2017F 210,000
I ~2014F ~2019F ~235,000
Christina Lake
A-B Q3 1998 Q4 2002 18,000
C Q3 2007 Q3 2011F 58,000
D Q3 2007 Q2 2013F 98,000
E Q4 2009 2014F 138,000
F Q4 2009 2016F 178,000
G Q4 2009 2017F 218,000
H ~2013F ~2019F ~258,000
On stream Under construction Submitted for regulatory approval* Planned no approvals*

*Timelines are subject to regulatory approvals.

SAGD development plans driving growth


Mbbls/d
350 Production capacity (year end rate)
Emerging Opportunities Annualized production
300 Christina Lake (developing)

Foster Creek (developing)


250
Christina Lake (existing)

Foster Creek (existing)


200
Annualized production

150

100

50

0
2010F 2011F 2012F 2013F 2014F 2015F 2016F 2017F 2018F 2019F

Volumes are shown before royalties and net to CVE (50% basis).

6
Timeline - illustrative SAGD phase
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6

Prepare application
Regulatory approval(1)
Engineering
Procurement Initial
capital
Construction(2)
Commissioning
Steam
Production

(1) Receipt of regulatory approval is variable. Assumes construction starts when approval is received.
(2) Construction time is variable depending on several factors. Commissioning, steam and production would be timed
accordingly.

Capital profile - illustrative SAGD phase


Percent of total initial capital Percent of peak production
50% 100%
Capital efficiency
based on initial
40%
capital
30% ~ 30 - 36 month
construction timeline
20% - starts after
regulatory approval
10%
Sustaining capital
0% 0%
varies from year to
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 year and may be
Years
affected by
Initial capital Sustaining capital
technological
Well capital innovations
Engineering and Maintenance capital
procurement
Plant capital

Construction % peak production

7
Why we’’re successful –– how we do it
Top quality reservoirs
Manufacturing approach
& project execution
Operational excellence
Technological innovations
Top quality people

Top quality reservoirs


Low SOR means
Steam-to-oil ratio
(bbl/bbl)
Lower capital cost
8
Lower operating cost
Smaller surface footprint
6 Lower energy usage
Lower emissions
Less water usage
4

0
Peer Peer Peer Peer Peer Peer Peer Peer Peer Peer Peer CVE Peer CVE
FC CL
Peers include: CNQ, COP, CLL, DVN, HSE, IMO, JACOS, MEG, NXY, RDS, SU.
Source: ERCB public domain data, April, 2009 –– March, 2010.

8
Manufacturing approach to development
Increasing efficiency is reducing execution timeline
Manufacturing process
•• Staged development
•• Dedicated in-house construction management teams
•• Multiple small contractors
•• Standard designs
•• Assembly line drilling & completions

Module yard
•• Enhanced safety
•• Minimize rework and cost over-runs
•• Cost savings and schedule certainty
•• Accessible labor

Nisku module yard

9
Pipe module

Christina Lake site construction

10
Operational excellence - Foster Creek
Mbbls/d Record production
120 113 Mbbls/d March 1, 2010

100

80

60

40

20

0
1-Jun-09 1-Sep-09 1-Dec-09 1-Mar-10 1-Jun-10
Volumes are shown on a 100% basis.

Operational excellence - Christina Lake


Mbbls/d Record production
20 18 Mbbls/d May 20, 2010

15
Turnaround

10

0
1-Jun-09 1-Sep-09 1-Dec-09 1-Mar-10 1-Jun-10
Volumes are shown on a 100% basis.

11
Electric Submersible Pumps (ESP)
ESP run life
ESPs reduce SOR through use of cumulative MTTF in months
lower operating pressures 13

~20% improvement in run life 12

•• Cumulative Meantime to Failure


(MTTF) increased from 10.5 to 11

12.7 months
10
Down time for a pump change
•• 75% reduction 9
Dec-08 Mar-09 Jun-09 Sep-09 Dec-09
•• 24 hour service rig operations Days down on pump change

Effect of reducing pump change


30

time 15 days: 20

More than 1,000,000 bbls/yr*


10

0
*Based on plant production of 100 Mbbls/d and 1 pump 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
change per well per year.

Technology –– improving recovery

Wedge wells
•• < 0.1 average SOR
Steam
•• 600 –– 800 bbls/d average chambers
production rate at Foster Creek coalesce

•• Acceleration of production Wedge well


producer
•• 10% potential increase in
Standard SAGD well pair
recovered oil
•• Foster Creek –– 36 wells drilled
•• Christina Lake –– evaluating pilot

12
Increased recovery with wedge wells
Illustrative well performance
Percent recovery*
80%
Incremental recovery
with wedge wells

Accelerated recovery
60%
with wedge wells

40%

Percent recovery without


wedge wells
20%

0%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Year
*Percent recovery of exploitable bitumen in place.

Technology - improving efficiencies


Electric drilling rigs
•• 3 rigs at Foster Creek & Christina Lake
•• In use since 2005
•• Improves efficiency, reduces operating
costs
•• Lower emissions
–– Greater than 65% reduction in CO2 vs.
a typical diesel powered rig
Blowdown boiler
•• Blowdown water from one boiler used
as feed water for second boiler
•• Generates more steam from the same
water
•• Less waste water disposal
•• Improved heat recovery lowers
operating costs and emissions

13
Canadian & US crude oil pipeline proposals
Kinder Morgan Enbridge Gateway
TMX Northern Leg TransCanada Keystone Enbridge Alberta Clipper
500 Mbbls/d TBD 450 Mbbls/d July 2010
400 Mbbls/d 2015+ 435 Mbbls/d June
Cushing Extension Southern Access Expansion
155 Mbbls/d 2011 800 Mbbls/d TBD
Heartland Extension Southern Access Extension
600 Mbbls/d 2013+ 400+ Mbbls/d TBD
Kinder Morgan
TMX2 Expansion
80 Mbbls/d 2015+
TMX3 Expansion Enbridge Ohio Access
320 Mbbls/d 2015+ 20-180 Mbbls/d TBD
Enbridge Line 9 Reversal
(Trailbreaker)
215 Mbbls/d TBD

Portland Pipeline Reversal


200 Mbbls/d TBD

TransCanada
Keystone XL
700 Mbbls/d 2013

Sunoco Buffalo to
BP/Enbridge GAP reversal Philadelphia New Line
Flanagan-Cushing 400 Mbbls/d TBD
300-400 Mbbls/d 2012+ Marysville to Toledo
Expansion
190-288 Mbbls/d TBD

Muskeg Expansion
38 Mbbls/d TBD

ExxonMobil/Enbridge
Pegasus Expansion
30 Mbbls/d June 2009 TransCanada
Texas Access New Line Louisiana Access
445 Mbbls/d TBD Sunoco to USGC
300 Mbbls/d TBD Scope TBD

Source: CAPP

Downstream overview
Top quality refinery assets
Wood River (Post-CORE)
•• 356 Mbbls/d crude throughput
•• 240 Mbbls/d heavy crude capacity
•• ~89% clean product yield
Borger
•• 146 Mbbls/d crude throughput
•• 35 Mbbls/d heavy crude capacity
•• ~89% clean product yield
Integration strategy
•• Capture full value chain - bitumen to transportation fuels
•• Minimize risk - reduce exposure to light / heavy differential
•• Continue to optimize Wood River and Borger to increase heavy processing
capacity

Volumes are shown on a 100% basis.

14
Bitumen value chain –– net margin
History of margin sharing
Share of bitumen value chain margin
100%

0%
95

96

97

98

99

00

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09
19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Total net margin available for one bbl of bitumen refined into
transportation fuels. Downstream margin based on Purvin & Gertz PADD Downstream net margin
II heavy refining margin. Upstream margin based on Purvin & Gertz
bitumen field price and average SAGD opex assuming a 2.5 SOR. Upstream net margin
Source: Purvin & Gertz, CVE.

Bitumen integration strategy


Mbbls/d Post 2012 –– long bitumen
350

Downstream bitumen equivalent processing capacity


300
Annualized bitumen production

250

200

150

100

50

0
2008 2009 2010F 2011F 2012F 2013F 2014F 2015F 2016F 2017F 2018F 2019F

Volumes are shown before royalties and net to CVE (50% basis).

15
Wood River CORE project
Increases overall capacity
•• 50 Mbbls/d of increased crude
throughput
•• 130 Mbbls/d of increased heavy
crude capacity
- lowers crude input costs
•• ~10% increase in clean product
yield
~$4.00/bbl margin improvement
Completion mid-2011 (Coker)
•• 9 of 21 scope areas already
complete
Final cost forecast to be within
10% of budget

Volumes are shown on a 100% basis.

Offloading modules

16
CORE project - new units area

High quality refinery assets


US refining infrastructure
35

30
Baker O’’Brien complexity index

25
Borger

Wood River CORE Project


20
post-CORE
Wood River
pre-CORE
15

10

17
Building value
Top quality assets
•• Foster Creek and Christina Lake are recognized as best in industry

Significant growth opportunity


•• Potential for greater than 245,000 bbls/d (net) of production
capacity at Foster Creek and Christina Lake

Experienced SAGD operator


•• A proven track record
•• Low cost capital and operating structures
•• Technology leader

Full value chain integration


•• Natural gas - heavy oil production - refining
•• CORE on-stream mid-2011

Supplemental information

18
Foster Creek summary
2009 2010F

Production (bbls/d) 37,725 46,000 –– 50,000


Net wells drilled(1) 21 31
Capital ($ MM) 262 250 –– 300
Operating cash flow(2) ($ MM) 585 550 –– 700
Operating costs ($/bbl) 11.87 12.50 –– 13.50
Acreage (year end, net acres)
Proper/Core area 36,000
Average royalty (%) 2.7 15 –– 20
SOR 2.5 2.3 –– 2.5
Supply cost US$/bbl(3) 40 –– 50

(1) Includes well pairs and wedge wells, excludes strat wells.
(2) Operating cash flow is a non-GAAP measure. Numbers shown include hedges.
(3) Average WTI or NYMEX price required for an after-tax cost of capital return of 9%.

Foster Creek overview


Producing formation: McMurray
Multiple stacked channels
~450 m reservoir depth
Oilsands leases
Up to 40 m+ net pay (average P&NG leases
25 m) ALBERTA Foster Creek proper

Cenovus land at Dec. 31, 2009.


High permeability (5 - 10 Darcies)
High oil saturation (~80%) Mbbls/d –– Net before royalties
60

9 –– 11° API bitumen 50

40

No significant gas caps or 30

formation water 20

10

0
2008 2009 2010F 2011F 2012F 2013F 2014F

19
Christina Lake summary
2009 2010F

Production (bbls/d) 6,698 7,200 –– 7,700


Net wells drilled(1) 0 25
Capital ($ MM) 224 300 –– 350
Operating cash flow(2) ($ MM) 78 100 –– 150
Operating costs ($/bbl) 16.31 16.00 –– 17.00
Acreage (year end, net acres)
Proper/Core area 12,000
Average royalty (%) 2.3 4 –– 6
SOR 2.1 2.1 –– 2.2
Supply cost US$/bbl(3) 45 –– 55

(1) Includes well pairs plus wedge wells, excludes strat wells.
(2) Operating cash flow is a non-GAAP measure. Numbers shown include hedges.
(3) Average WTI or NYMEX price required for an after-tax cost of capital return of 9%.

Christina Lake overview


Producing formation: McMurray
Multiple stacked channels
Reservoir depth ~375 m
Oilsands leases
Up to 47 m+ net pay (average P&NG leases
25 –– 30 m) ALBERTA Christina Lake proper

Cenovus land at Dec. 31, 2009.


High permeability (5 - 10 Darcies)
Mbbls/d –– Net before royalties
High oil saturation (~80%) 50

7.5 –– 9.5° API bitumen


40

30

Gas cap and bottom water present


20

10

0
2008 2009 2010F 2011F 2012F 2013F 2014F

20
Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin pipelines
Mbbl/d Existing and Planned Pipeline Project Capacity (Unrisked)

6,500
6,100 Alberta Clipper Expansion
6,000
CAPP supply forecast 150
350
TMX Northern Leg
5,500 (June 2009) 400 400 400 (Kitimat)
Proposed
projects 200 525 525 525 Enbridge Northern
5,000 175 Gateway
100 200 200 200 200
4,500 400 400 400 400 400
Keystone XL (Expansion)
200

4,000 TMX-2 & 3 (Vancouver)


2,980 700 700 700 700 700 700
700
3,500 350
Keystone XL (Base)
590 590 590 590 590 590
435 435 435 435
3,000
218
210 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 Keystone Legacy &
Existing 2,500 Expansion
and Enbridge Alberta Clipper
approved 2,000 (Base)
projects 1,935 1,870 1,870 1,870 1,870 1,870 1,870 1,870 1,870 1,870 1,870 Enbridge (Base)
1,500

1,000 TMPL (Land)

500 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300
Express Pipeline
318 318 318 318 318 318 318 318 318 318 318
-
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Proposed projects illustrate number of pipelines competing for next expansion

WRB refinery statistics


Bitumen Heavy
Crude Coking Baker
processing crude
throughput, capacity, O’’Brien
equivalent, processing
Mbbls/d Mbbls/d complexity
Mbbls/d Mbbls/d

Wood River
306 18 50 110 10.0
pre-CORE

Wood River
356 83 130 240 15.0
post-CORE

Borger 146 25 20 35 15.7

Figures represent 100% of the Wood River and Borger refinery operations.

21
Representative crude slates & yields
Refinery inputs - % crude slate Refinery output - % yield
100%

75%

50%

25%

0%
WR current WR post-CORE Borger WR current WR post-CORE Borger

Other products Other clean products


Heavy Medium sour Light sweet
Distillates * Motor fuels**

*Distillates include diesel and jet fuel.


**Motor fuels includes all blends of gasoline.

Downstream margin sensitivity


Wood River (pre-CORE) and Borger
Net margin
($/bbl) 3-2-1 crack spread ($/bbl)
$4

Base +$1 +$2


$3

$2

$1

$-
$0 +$1 +$2 +$3 +$4
WCS differential ($/bbl)

22
Downstream margin sensitivity
Wood River (post-CORE) and Borger
Net margin
($/bbl) 3-2-1 crack spread ($/bbl)

$4

Base +$1 +$2

$3

$2

$1

$-
$0 +$1 +$2 +$3 +$4
WCS differential ($/bbl)

Oil & gas information


The resources estimates were prepared effective December 31, 2009 by McDaniel & Associates Consultants Ltd., an independent qualified reserves
evaluator (IQRE), and other than as disclosed herein are based on definitions contained in the Canadian Oil and Gas Evaluation Handbook (COGEH). For
further discussion regarding our economic contingent resources and our total bitumen initially-in-place and all subcategories thereof, see our April 22,
2010 news release and our June 16, 2010 news release, respectively, available at www.cenovus.com. Actual resources may be greater than or less than
the estimates provided. Total Bitumen Initially-In-Place (BIIP) (equivalent to ““total resources””) is that quantity of bitumen that is estimated to exist
originally in naturally occurring accumulations. It includes that quantity of bitumen that is estimated, as of a given date, to be contained in known
accumulations, prior to production, plus those estimated quantities in accumulations yet to be discovered. BIIP estimates include unrecoverable volumes
and are not an estimate of the volume of the substances that will ultimately be recovered. Discovered Bitumen Initially-In-Place (equivalent to
““discovered resources””) is that quantity of bitumen that is estimated, as of a given date, to be contained in known accumulations prior to production.
The recoverable portion of discovered bitumen initially-in-place includes production, reserves, and contingent resources; the remainder is categorized as
unrecoverable. There is no certainty that it will be commercially viable to produce any portion of the estimate. Undiscovered Bitumen Initially-In-
Place (equivalent to ““undiscovered resources””) is that quantity of bitumen that is estimated, on a given date, to be contained in accumulations yet to be
discovered. The recoverable portion of undiscovered bitumen initially-in-place is referred to as ““prospective resources,”” the remainder as
““unrecoverable””. There is no certainty that any portion of the estimate will be discovered. If discovered, there is no certainty that it will be commercially
viable to produce any portion of the resources. Exploitable Bitumen Initially-In-Place is the estimated volume of bitumen, before any production has
been removed, which is contained in a subsurface stratigraphic interval that meets or exceeds certain reservoir characteristics considered necessary for
the commercial application of known recovery technologies. Examples of such reservoir characteristics include continuous net pay, porosity, and mass
bitumen content. This definition was derived from and is consistent with current draft proposed COGEH terminology. Contingent resources –– those
quantities of bitumen estimated, as of a given date, to be potentially recoverable from known accumulations using established technology or technology
under development, but which are not currently considered to be commercially recoverable due to one or more contingencies. Contingencies may include
such factors as economic, legal, environmental, political and regulatory matters or a lack of markets. It is also appropriate to classify as contingent
resources the estimated discovered recoverable quantities associated with a project in the early evaluation stage. For Cenovus, the contingencies which
must be overcome to enable the classification of bitumen contingent resources as reserves include regulatory application submission with no major
issues raised, access to markets and intent to proceed by the operator and partners as evidenced by major capital expenditures planned within five
years. The estimate of contingent resources has not been adjusted for risk based on the chance of development. There is no certainty that it will be
commercially viable to produce any portion of the resources. Economic contingent resources –– those contingent resources that are currently
economically recoverable based on specific forecasts of commodity prices and costs. The IQRE used the same commodity price assumptions that were
used for the 2009 reserves evaluation, which were determined in accordance with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission requirements. Prospective
resources are those quantities of bitumen estimated, as of a given date, to be potentially recoverable from undiscovered accumulations by application of
future development projects. Prospective resources have both an associated chance of discovery and a chance of development. Prospective Resources
are further subdivided in accordance with the level of certainty associated with recoverable estimates assuming their discovery and development and
may be subclassified based on project maturity. Unrecoverable is that portion of discovered or undiscovered BIIP quantities which is estimated, as of a
given date, not to be recoverable by future development projects. A portion of these quantities may become recoverable in the future as commercial
circumstances change or technological developments occur; the remaining portion may never be recovered due to the physical/chemical constraints
represented by subsurface interaction of fluids and reservoir rocks. Best estimate is considered to be the best estimate of the quantity of resources that
will actually be recovered. It is equally likely that the actual remaining quantities recovered will be greater or less than the best estimate. Those
resources that fall within the best estimate have a 50% confidence level that the actual quantities recovered will equal or exceed the estimate. Proved
reserves are those quantities of bitumen, which, by analysis of geoscience and engineering data, can be estimated with reasonable certainty to be
economically producible from a given date forward, from known reservoirs and under existing economic conditions, operating methods and government
regulations. Probable reserves are those additional reserves of bitumen that are less certain to be recovered than proved reserves, but which, together
with proved reserves, are as likely as not to be recovered. Our disclosure of annual reserves data is made in accordance with U.S. disclosure
requirements pursuant to an exemption received from the Canadian Securities Administrators. Accordingly, the proved plus probable reserves data may
differ from corresponding information prepared in accordance with NI 51-101. See ““Note Regarding Reserves Data and Other Oil and Gas Information”” in
Cenovus’’s 2009 Annual Information Form (AIF). Certain natural gas volumes have been converted to barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) on the basis of one
barrel (bbl) to six thousand cubic feet (Mcf). BOE may be misleading, particularly if used in isolation. A conversion ratio of one bbl to six Mcf is based on
an energy equivalency conversion method primarily applicable at the burner tip and does not represent value equivalency at the well head.

23
Forward-looking information
This presentation contains certain forward-looking statements and information about our current expectations, estimates and projections about the future,
based on certain assumptions made by the Company in light of its experience and perception of historical trends. Although we believe that the
expectations represented by such forward-looking statements are reasonable, there can be no assurance that such expectations will prove to be correct.
Forward-looking statements are typically identified by words such as ““anticipate””, ““believe””, ““expect””, ““plan””, ““intend””, ““forecast”” or ““F””, ““target””,
““project””, ““objective””, ““could””, ““focus””, ““goal””, ““proposed””, ““scheduled””, ““outlook””, ““potential””, ““may”” or similar expressions suggesting future outcomes or
statements regarding an outlook, including statements about our strategy, our projected future value or net asset value, schedules, land positions,
production, including, without limitation, the stability or growth thereof, reserves and resources estimates, material properties, uses and development of
our technology, risk mitigation efforts, commodity prices, shareholder value, cash flow, funding alternatives, costs and expected impact of future
commitments in respect of our ongoing operations generally and with respect to certain properties and interests held by Cenovus. Readers are cautioned
not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements and information as our actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied.
Forward-looking statements involve a number of assumptions, risks and uncertainties, some of which are specific to Cenovus and others that apply to the
industry generally. The risk factors and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially, and the factors or assumptions on which the
forward-looking information is based, include, among other things: volatility of and assumptions regarding oil and gas prices; assumptions inherent in our
current guidance; our projected capital investment levels, the flexibility of capital spending plans and the associated source of funding; the effect of our
risk management program, including the impact of derivative financial instruments and our access to various sources of capital; accuracy of cost
estimates; fluctuations in commodity, currency and interest rates; fluctuations in product supply and demand; market competition, including from
alternative energy sources; risks inherent in our marketing operations, including credit risks; success of hedging strategies; maintaining a desirable debt
to cash flow ratio; accuracy of our reserves, resources and future production estimates; estimates of quantities of oil, bitumen, natural gas and liquids
from properties and other sources not currently classified as proved; our ability to replace and expand oil and gas reserves; the ability of us and
ConocoPhillips to maintain our relationship and to successfully manage and operate the North American integrated heavy oil business and to obtain
necessary regulatory approvals; the successful and timely implementation of capital projects; reliability of our assets; refining and marketing margins;
potential disruption or unexpected technical difficulties in developing new products and manufacturing processes; potential failure of new products to
achieve acceptance in the market; unexpected cost increases or technical difficulties in constructing or modifying manufacturing or refining facilities;
unexpected difficulties in manufacturing, transporting or refining synthetic crude oil; risks associated with technology and its application to our business;
our ability to generate sufficient cash flow from operations to meet our current and future obligations; our ability to access external sources of debt and
equity capital; the timing and the costs of well and pipeline construction; our ability to secure adequate product transportation; changes in royalty, tax,
environmental, greenhouse gas, carbon and other laws or regulations, or the interpretations of such laws or regulations, as adopted or proposed, the
impact thereof and the costs associated with compliance; the expected impact and timing of various accounting pronouncements, rule changes and
standards on us, our financial results and our consolidated financial statements; changes in the general economic, market and business conditions; the
political and economic conditions in the countries in which we operate; the occurrence of unexpected events such as war, terrorist threats, hostilities, civil
insurrection and instability affecting countries in which we operate; risks associated with existing and potential future lawsuits and regulatory actions
made against us; our financing plans and initiatives; the historical financial information pertaining to our assets as operated by Encana prior to November
30, 2009 may not be representative of our results as an independent entity; our limited operating history as a separate entity and other risks and
uncertainties described from time to time in the filings we make with securities regulatory authorities. The forward-looking statements and information
contained in this presentation, including the assumptions, risks and uncertainties underlying such statements, are made as of the date of this
presentation.
Many of these risk factors are discussed in further detail in our 2010 First Quarter Report to Shareholders, our 2009 AIF/Form 40-F and our MD&A for the
year ended December 31, 2009, each as filed at www.sedar.com and www.sec.gov, and available at www.cenovus.com. The Cenovus 2010 Corporate
Guidance, including the assumptions on which it is based, is available at www.cenovus.com.
Non-GAAP measures (Operating Earnings, Operating Cash Flow, Cash flow, Free Cash Flow, Capitalization and Adjusted EBITDA) have been described
and presented in order to provide shareholders and potential investors with additional information regarding Cenovus’’s liquidity and its ability to generate
funds to finance its operations. Please see our 2010 First Quarter Report to Shareholders for a full discussion of the use of each measure.

24