2017 budget overview 2017 budget December 8, 2016 Advisory Forw - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

2017 budget overview
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

2017 budget overview 2017 budget December 8, 2016 Advisory Forw - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

2017 budget overview 2017 budget December 8, 2016 Advisory Forw ard-looking inform ation. This presentation contains certain forward-looking statements and other information (collectively forward-looking information) about Cenovus's current


slide-1
SLIDE 1

2017 budget overview

2017 budget December 8, 2016

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Forw ard-looking inform ation. This presentation contains certain forward-looking statements and other information (collectively “forward-looking information”) about Cenovus's current expectations, estimates and projections, made in light of our experience and perception of historical trends. Forward-looking information in this document is identified by words such as “anticipate”, “believe”, “expect”, “plan”, "budget", “forecast” or “F”, "could", "should", "may", "on track", "project", “focus”, “schedule”, "capacity", “potential”, “strategy”, "opportunity", "confident", "position", “target”, or similar expressions and includes suggestions of future

  • utcomes, including statements about: forecast operating and financial results; planned and potential future capital expenditures, including the timing and financing thereof; expected future production, including the

timing, stability or growth thereof; growth projects and strategy; projections contained in the company's 2016 and 2017 guidance and budgets; project plans and related schedules; the company's confidence that it can move forward with certain projects and the potential of such projects to drive shareholder value; high-return potential of, as well as expected short-cycle cash flow generation and other benefits associated with conventional oil drilling opportunities in southern Alberta; expected further improvements in cost efficiency; opportunity to increase shareholder value; growth opportunities; expected project economics; forecasted commodity prices; and the company's hedging program and projected impacts. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking information as Cenovus's actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied. Developing forward-looking information involves reliance on a number of assumptions and consideration of certain risks and uncertainties, some of which are specific to Cenovus and others that apply to the industry

  • generally. The factors or assumptions on which the forward-looking information is based include: assumptions and sensitivities disclosed in Cenovus's 2016 and 2017 guidance, available at cenovus.com; forecast oil and

natural gas prices; projected capital investment levels, flexibility of capital spending plans and associated sources of funding; sustainability of achieved cost reductions, achievement of future cost reductions and sustainability thereof; achievement of additional improvements in drilling and completion times, well pad designs and well conformance; success of certain initiatives such as use of wider well spacing and longer horizontal well lengths at oil sands operations; expected condensate prices; projected supply costs; estimates of quantities of oil, bitumen, natural gas and liquids from properties and other sources not currently classified as proved; expected production decline rates; future development, success, and use of technology and the impacts thereof; ability to obtain necessary regulatory and partner approvals; successful and timely implementation

  • f capital projects or stages thereof; the company's ability to generate sufficient cash flow from operations to meet its current and future obligations; estimated abandonment and reclamation costs, including associated

levies and regulations; and other risks and uncertainties described from time to time in the filings we make with securities regulatory authorities. 2017 guidance, available at cenovus.com, assumes: Brent of US$48.75/ bbl, WTI of US$47.25/ bbl; WCS of US$31.50/ bbl; NYMEX of US$3.00/ MMBtu; AECO of $2.60/ GJ; Chicago 3-2-1 Crack Spread of US$11.25/ bbl; exchange rate of $0.74 US$/ C$. 2016 guidance (updated October 27, 2016), available at cenovus.com, assumes: Brent of US$45.00/ bbl, WTI of US$43.25/ bbl; WCS of US$29.50/ bbl; NYMEX of US$2.50/ MMBtu; AECO of $2.10/ GJ; Chicago 3-2-1 Crack Spread of US$13.30/ bbl; exchange rate of $0.76 US$/ C$. The risk factors and uncertainties that could cause Cenovus's actual results to differ materially include: volatility of and assumptions regarding oil and natural gas prices; the effectiveness of the company's risk management program, including the impact of derivative financial instruments, the success of the company's hedging strategies and the sufficiency of its liquidity position; accuracy of cost estimates; commodity prices, currency and interest rates, including fluctuations with respect thereto; product supply and demand; market competition, including from alternative energy sources; risks inherent in Cenovus's marketing operations, including credit risks; exposure to counterparties and partners, including ability and willingness of such parties to satisfy contractual obligations in a timely manner; risks inherent to operation of the company's crude-by- rail terminal, including health, safety and environmental risks; maintaining desirable ratios of debt to adjusted EBITDA, net debt to adjusted EBITDA, debt to capitalization and net debt to capitalization; ability to access various sources of debt and equity capital, generally, and on terms acceptable to Cenovus; ability to finance growth and sustaining capital expenditures; changes in credit ratings applicable to Cenovus or any of its securities; changes to dividend plans or strategy, including the dividend reinvestment plan; accuracy of reserves, resources and future production estimates; ability to replace and expand oil and gas reserves; ability to maintain the company's relationships with its partners and to successfully manage and operate its integrated business; reliability of assets, including in order to meet production targets; potential disruption or unexpected technical difficulties in developing new products and manufacturing processes; occurrence of unexpected events such as fires, severe weather conditions, explosions, blow-outs, equipment failures, transportation incidents and other accidents or similar events; refining and marketing margins; inflationary pressures on operating costs, including labour, natural gas and other energy sources used in oil sands processes; potential failure of products to achieve acceptance in the market; risks associated with fossil fuel industry reputation; unexpected cost increases or technical difficulties in constructing or modifying manufacturing or refining facilities; unexpected difficulties in producing, transporting or refining of crude oil into petroleum and chemical products; risks associated with technology and its application to Cenovus's business; risks associated with climate change; the timing and costs of well and pipeline construction; ability to secure adequate product transportation, including sufficient pipeline, crude-by-rail, marine or other alternate transportation, including to address any gaps caused by constraints in the pipeline system; availability of, and ability to attract and retain, critical talent; changes in labour relationships; changes in the regulatory framework in any of the locations in which Cenovus operates, including changes to the regulatory approval process and land-use designations, royalty, tax, environmental (including in relation to abandonment, reclamation and remediation costs, levies or liability recovery with respect thereto), greenhouse gas, carbon and other laws or regulations, or changes to the interpretation of such laws and 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 Cenovus's business, financial results and consolidated financial statements; changes in the general economic, market and business conditions; the political and economic conditions in the countries of operation; occurrence of unexpected events such as war, terrorist threats and the instability resulting therefrom; and risks associated with existing and potential future lawsuits and regulatory actions. Readers are cautioned that the foregoing lists are not exhaustive and are made as at the date hereof. For a discussion of Cenovus's material risk factors, see “Risk Factors” in the company's Annual Information Form or Form 40-F for the period ended December 31, 2015, together with the updates under "Risk Management" in each of the company's first, second and third quarter 2016 MD&As, available on SEDAR at sedar.com, EDGAR at sec.gov and on the company's website at cenovus.com.

Advisory

December 8, 2016 2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Non-GAAP m easures. This presentation contains references to non-GAAP measures as follows:

  • Operating cash flow is defined as revenues, less purchased product, transportation and blending, operating expenses, production and mineral taxes plus realized gains, less realized losses on risk management activities

and is used to provide a consistent measure of the cash generating performance of the company’s assets for comparability of Cenovus’s underlying financial performance between periods. Items within the Corporate and Eliminations segment are excluded from the calculation of operating cash flow.

  • Cash flow is defined as cash from operating activities excluding net change in other assets and liabilities and net change in non-cash working capital, both of which are defined on the Consolidated Statement of Cash

Flows in Cenovus’s interim and annual Consolidated Financial Statements. Cash flow is a measure commonly used in the oil and gas industry to assist in measuring a company's ability to finance its capital programs and meet its financial obligations.

  • Free cash flow is defined as cash flow less capital investment.
  • Operating earnings is used to provide a consistent measure of the comparability of the company’s underlying financial performance between periods by removing non-operating items. Operating earnings is defined as

earnings before income tax excluding gain (loss) on discontinuance, gain on bargain purchase, unrealized risk management gains (losses) on derivative instruments, unrealized foreign exchange gains (losses) on translation of U.S. dollar denominated notes issued from Canada, foreign exchange gains (losses) on settlement of intercompany transactions, gains (losses) on divestiture of assets, less income taxes on operating earnings (loss) before tax, excluding the effect of changes in statutory income tax rates and the recognition of an increase in U.S. tax basis.

  • Debt to capitalization, net debt to capitalization, debt to adjusted EBITDA and net debt to adjusted EBITDA are ratios that management uses to steward the company’s overall debt position as measures of the

company’s overall financial strength. Debt is defined as short-term borrowings and long-term debt, including the current portion. Net debt is defined as debt net of cash and cash equivalents. Capitalization is defined as debt plus shareholders’ equity. Net debt to capitalization is defined as net debt divided by net debt plus shareholders' equity. Adjusted EBITDA is defined as earnings before finance costs, interest income, income tax expense, depreciation, depletion and amortization, goodwill and asset impairments, unrealized gains or losses on risk management, foreign exchange gains or losses, gains or losses on divestiture of assets and other income and loss, calculated on a trailing 12-month basis.

  • These measures do not have a standardized meaning as prescribed by International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and therefore are considered non-GAAP measures. These measures may not be comparable to

similar measures presented by other issuers. These measures have been described and presented in this presentation 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. This information should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for measures prepared in accordance with IFRS. For further information, refer to Cenovus’s third quarter 2015 Management’s Discussion & Analysis (MD&A) available at cenovus.com. Definitions and industry term inology. Type wells based on actual drilling results to date. IP90 is defined as the average producing day rate over the first 90 days of a wells life. IP365 is defined as the average producing day rate over the first 365 days of a wells life. Well costs include the average expected costs to drill, complete, and tie-in a single well. They exclude costs associated with early stage appraisal activity such as seismic, stratigraphic test drilling, and other infrastructure. IRR is defined as the interest rate at which the net present value of all future cash flows from a well equal zero. NPV is defined as the difference between the present value of projected cash inflows and the present value of projected cash outflows. Payout is the number of months required for projected after-tax cash inflows to exceed initial well costs. F&D is defined as expected initial well costs divided by forecasted average recovery based on type curve analysis. Recycle ratio is defined as estimated total operating cash flow over the life of a well divided by initial well costs. Capital efficiency is defined as initial well costs divided by IP365. Supply costs are calculated as the WTI price required to achieve a 9% after-tax return after all capital, operating and maintenance costs are considered. Production Presentation Basis. Cenovus presents production volumes on a net to Cenovus before royalties basis, unless otherwise stated. TM denotes a trademark of Cenovus Energy Inc.

December 8, 2016 3

Advisory

slide-4
SLIDE 4

2 0 1 7 budget overview

  • Increasing oil production by 14%
  • Holding the line on per barrel oil operating costs
  • Resuming construction of Christina Lake phase G
  • Allocating growth capital to attractive conventional
  • pportunities at Palliser
  • Maintaining financial strength and capital discipline

December 8, 2016 4

Oil sands drive 14% liquids growth

slide-5
SLIDE 5

2017 budget captures cost improvements

5 December 8, 2016

Total capital guidance of $ 1 .2 – $ 1 .4 billion

  • 70% sustaining and maintenance; 30% growth and other
  • $115 million for Christina Lake phase G expansion
  • $160 million for Palliser development

Total oil grow th of 1 4 %

  • Continued ramp-up of Christina Lake phase F and Foster

Creek phase G

Total production guidance of 2 8 0 – 3 0 0 Mboe/ d Cash inflow s cover sustaining capital plus dividends at US$ 4 5 – US$ 5 0 / bbl W TI

Capital highlights 2017F 2016F % change

Total capital ($ billions) $1.2 – $1.4 $1.0 – $1.1 24%

Production highlights 2017F 2016F % change

Oil sands (Mbbls/ d) 172 – 184 146 – 150 20% Conventional oil (Mbbls/ d) 1 51 – 56 55 – 56 (4% ) Total oil (Mbbls/ d) 1 223 – 240 201 – 206 14% Natural gas (MMcf/ d) 340 – 360 390 – 395 (11% ) Total production (Mboe/ d) 280 – 300 266 – 272 8%

1 Conventional oil and total oil includes natural gas liquids (NGLs).

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Clear capital allocation priorities

December 8, 2016 6

Safe & reliable

  • perations

Sustainable returns to shareholders Value added grow th Discretionary capital

Maintenance & oil sands sustaining capital Dividends must be sustainable at every point in cycle Christina Lake phase G Palliser development Portfolio optimization, advancing emerging projects and margin enhancement

  • pportunities

financial discipline | cost leadership | focused innovation

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Christina Lake budget highlights

2 0 1 7 F capital: $ 3 0 0 – $ 3 5 0 m illion

  • $115 million for phase G expansion; resuming construction in H1 2017

2 0 1 7 F production: 9 6 – 1 0 2 Mbbls/ d

  • Year-over-year growth of 25%
  • Phase F expected to continue ramping up through 2017

Top-tier reservoir

  • 2017F SOR: 1.8x – 2.2x

Top-quartile operating cost perform ance

  • 2017F non-fuel opex: $4.50 – $5.50/ bbl
  • 2017F total opex: $6.50 – $8.00/ bbl

December 8, 2016 7

slide-8
SLIDE 8

8

Phase G builds on Christina Lake success

Best-in-class oil sands project

  • Proven track record in project development
  • Industry-leading steam-oil ratio
  • Low capital efficiencies
  • leveraging pre-installed infrastructure

Realizing over $ 5 0 0 m illion in project savings

  • Fewer well pairs
  • Lower well costs
  • Lower plant expansion project costs

December 8, 2016

Christina Lake phase G 100% gross

Project oil capacity (bbls/ d) 50,000 Steam-oil ratio 1.8 – 2.2 Capital spent to date ($ millions) $250 Capital remaining to completion ($ millions) $800 – $900 Construction to resume H1 2017 First oil date H2 2019 Go-forward capital efficiency ($/ bbl/ d) $16,000 – $18,000 After-tax I RR (go-forward, flat US$60 Brent) > 20%

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Foster Creek budget highlights

2 0 1 7 F capital: $ 3 2 5 – $ 3 7 5 m illion

  • Constructing sustaining pads for 2018-2019

2 0 1 7 F production: 7 6 – 8 2 Mbbls/ d

  • Year-over-year growth of 14%
  • Phase G expected to continue ramping up through 2017

2 0 1 7 F SOR: 2 .6 x – 3 .0 x 2 0 1 7 F non-fuel opex: $ 7 .7 5 – $ 9 .2 5 / bbl 2 0 1 7 F total opex: $ 1 0 .5 0 – $ 1 2 .5 0 / bbl

December 8, 2016 9

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Innovation drives sustaining capital reductions

December 8, 2016 10 $14.00 $10.50 $7.00 $7.25 $0.00 $5.00 $10.00 $15.00 2014 2015 2016F 2017F

Exam ples of expected efficiency gains:

  • Quicker drilling times: up to 30% faster
  • Redesigned well pads: 35% – 50% reduction in

size and costs

  • Longer reach horizontal well pairs: up to 1,600m
  • Enhanced start-up procedures
  • Better conformance with inflow/ outflow control

devices and improved liners

  • Fewer Wedge WellsTM

Targeting oil sands sustaining capital costs of $ 7 / bbl

Structural changes reduce sustaining costs

Sustaining capital ($/ bbl)

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Strategy rem ains unchanged

  • Free cash flow used to fund oil sands growth
  • pportunities
  • Flexible capital investment to respond to

commodity price volatility

Four key properties

  • Palliser block – tight oil & natural gas
  • Weyburn – waterflood/ CO2 EOR
  • Pelican Lake – waterflood/ polymer EOR
  • Suffield – oil & natural gas

11

Conventional portfolio generates free cash flow

December 8, 2016

Pelican Lake

Saskatchewan Alberta

Palliser block Suffield W eyburn

slide-12
SLIDE 12

12 $0 $25 $50 $75 $100 $125 $150 $175 $200 $0 $25 $50 $75 $100 $125 $150 $175 $200 Palliser Weyburn Pelican Lake Suffield Maintenance Growth Operating cash flow

2 0 1 7 F conventional capital: $ 2 8 5 – $ 3 4 0 m illion

  • $160 million growth capital directed to Palliser block
  • disciplined program of 50 horizontal development wells and

60 stratigraphic wells

  • $150 million maintenance and optimization across the

conventional portfolio

2 0 1 7 F conventional production: 1 0 8 – 1 1 6 Mboe/ d

  • 51 – 56 Mbbls/ d of oil
  • 340 – 360 MMcf/ d of natural gas

2 0 1 7 F total oil opex: $ 1 5 .0 0 – $ 1 7 .0 0 / bbl 2 0 1 7 F total natural gas opex: $ 1 .2 0 – $ 1 .4 0 / m cf

Conventional budget focused on Palliser

December 8, 2016

Targeted growth at Palliser

Total capital ($MM) Operating cash flow1 ($MM) Note: Conventional oil and total oil includes natural gas liquids (NGLs).

1Operating cash flow is a non-GAAP measure. Based on strip prices as of

November 14, 2016. See advisory.

slide-13
SLIDE 13

13

Palliser block is an attractive opportunity

December 8, 2016

Taking a disciplined approach to developm ent

  • Low-cost and short-cycle time growth opportunities
  • Over 1,200 sections of leased and available Mannville oil lands
  • 700 unrisked Mannville horizontal oil locations identified
  • Extensive seismic coverage and well control
  • Existing area infrastructure: ~ 600 km of oil pipelines and four oil

batteries

Type curve I P9 0 ( boe/ d) I P3 6 5 ( boe/ d) W ell costs ( $ MM, DC&T) % gas I RR ( % ) NPV 1 0 % after-tax ( $ MM) Payout ( years) F&D ( $ / boe) Recyle ratio ( x) 1 year capital efficiency ( $ k/ flow ing) Supply cost ( US$ / bbl)

Ellerslie 211 144 $1.8 6% 48% $1.4 1.9 $10.25 3.0 12.5 $32.81 Lithic Glauc 195 140 $1.8 23% 38% $1.1 2.2 $11.13 2.6 12.9 $34.10 Basal Quartz 170 127 $1.9 29% 30% $1.0 2.6 $11.04 2.9 15.3 $32.38 Regional Glauc 170 121 $1.8 34% 22% $0.5 3.3 $12.09 2.2 14.9 $36.42

38% 19% 23% 20%

Ellerslie Lithic Glauc Basal Quartz Regional Glauc

Unrisked location inventory

Strip prices as of November 14, 2016. See advisory for definitions.

slide-14
SLIDE 14

2 0 1 7 budget overview

  • Increasing oil production by 14%
  • Holding the line on per-barrel oil operating costs
  • Resuming construction of Christina Lake phase G
  • Allocating growth capital to attractive conventional
  • pportunities at Palliser
  • Maintaining financial strength and capital discipline

December 8, 2016 14

Oil sands drive 14% liquids growth

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Supplemental information

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Hedging summary

16 US$ hedge prices converted to C$ at 0.7546 US$/ C$ December 7, 2016 Bank of Canada noon day rate. Percentages of production are based on 2016 and 2017 guidance documents dated October 27, 2016 and December 8, 2016.

$50.00 $55.00 $60.00 $65.00 $70.00 $75.00 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 H2 2016 H1 2017 H2 2017 H1 2018 Swap volume (bbls/ d) Collar volume (bbls/ d)

Current crude oil hedges at December 7, 2016

bbls/ d C$/ bbl

H2 2 0 1 6 average 3 2 % H1 2 0 1 7 average 3 0 % H2 2 0 1 7 average 2 6 % H1 2 0 1 8

slide-17
SLIDE 17

2017F operating cash flow sensitivities

Independent base case sensitivities ($ millions) Increase Decrease Crude oil (WTI) – US$10.00 change $650 ($660) Light-heavy differential (WTI-WCS) – US$5.00 change ($350) $340 Chicago 3-2-1 crack spread – US$1.00 change $95 ($95) Natural gas (NYMEX) – US$1.00 change $75 ($75) Exchange rate (US$/ C$) – $0.05 change ($165) $190

Includes impact of current hedge positions for the full year 2017.

Operating cash flow sensitivities

December 8, 2016 17

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Refining operating cash flow sensitivities

18 December 8, 2016

  • $250

$0 $250 $500 $750 $1,000 $1,250 $10.00 $12.00 $14.00 $16.00 $18.00 $20.00 Chicago crack spread - US$/ bbl

US$20/ bbl US$15/ bbl US$10/ bbl

Refining operating cash flow net (LI FO basis) US$ million L/ H diff

U$1 change in crack spread = ~ US$70 million refining operating cash flow U$1 change in L/ H differential = ~ US$40 million refining operating cash flow U$1 change in WTI = ~ US$6 million refining operating cash flow

Refining operating cash flow sensitivities

Based on an approximately US$50/ bbl WTI as a basis and assumes no unplanned downtime or external disruptions. RINs assumed at US$0.90 cpg.

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Kam Sandhar Vice-President, I nvestor Relations & Corporate Development kam.sandhar@cenovus.com 403.766.5883 Steve Murray Senior Analyst, I nvestor Relations steven.murray@cenovus.com 403.766.3382 Michelle Cheyne Analyst, I nvestor Relations michelle.cheyne@cenovus.com 403.766.4277 Cenovus Energy I nc. 500 Centre Street SE Calgary, Alberta T2P 0M5 Telephone: 403.766.2000 Toll free in Canada: 403.766.2066 Fax: 403.766.7600 cenovus.com

Investor relations contacts