BUILDING ON A PROVEN TRACK RECORD CORPORATE PRESENTATION January - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

building on a proven track record
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

BUILDING ON A PROVEN TRACK RECORD CORPORATE PRESENTATION January - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

BUILDING ON A PROVEN TRACK RECORD CORPORATE PRESENTATION January 2017 1 CORPORATE PRESENTATION CORPORATE PROFILE Corporate Summary Q3 2016 Avg. Daily Production 55,137 boe/d Production Mix 1 ~61% liquids/39% gas Intermediate Corporate


slide-1
SLIDE 1

1 CORPORATE PRESENTATION

BUILDING ON A PROVEN TRACK RECORD

CORPORATE PRESENTATION

January 2017

slide-2
SLIDE 2

2 CORPORATE PRESENTATION

CORPORATE PROFILE

Corporate Summary Q3 2016 Avg. Daily Production 55,137 boe/d Production Mix1 ~61% liquids/39% gas Corporate Decline2 ~12% Undeveloped Land (net)1 430,000 acres Reserves (2P YE 2015)3 569.1 million boe Reserve Life Index (2P YE 2015)4,9 25.2 years Market Summary Capitalization5 $1.0 billion Enterprise Value6 $2.7 billion Shares Outstanding1 548 million Cash on hand10 $530 million Total Debt7 $1.65 billion Total Debt/EBITDA8,9 3.2x Tax Pools1 ~$3.4 billion

1. As at September 30, 2016. 2. Calculated as decline in 2015 base production from 2014 base production. This measure does not have any standardized meaning and therefore is not comparable to similar measures presented by other companies. 3. GLJ December 31, 2015 reserve report – Company Interest using forecast prices and costs. 4. December 31, 2015 year end reserves divided by 2016 forecast production. 5. Based on January 18, 2017 TSX closing price of $1.87. 6. Defined as market capitalization as at January 18, 2017 + total debt before working capital as at September 30, 2016. 7. As at September 30, 2016. Debt includes convertible debentures and is before working capital. 8. EBITDA is trailing 12 month EBITDA as at September 30, 2016. 9. This measure does not have any standardized meaning and therefore is not comparable to similar measures presented by other companies. 10. As at January 6, 2017

Intermediate Canadian oil and natural gas producer with 28 years of operations Publically listed

  • n both the

Toronto and New York Stock Exchanges Increasing focus

  • n oil and liquids

development

slide-3
SLIDE 3

3 CORPORATE PRESENTATION

INCREASING FOCUS ON OIL AND LIQUIDS DEVELOPMENT

PENGROWTH’S RESOURCE BASE

Conventional Assets Swan Hills Cardium Montney Thermal Assets Lindbergh

Large accumulations Long life assets Low declines Low cost structure Low sustaining capital

Barbell strategy offers commodity and capital optionality and is expected to provide over $11 billion of long-term development & resource opportunities Growth engines for production and reserves

slide-4
SLIDE 4

4 CORPORATE PRESENTATION

ENHANCING FINANCIAL STRENGTH IN A RECOVERING COMMODITY PRICE ENVIRONMENT

2017 CAPITAL BUDGET

Production breakout Light oil (bbl/d) 10,300 Thermal oil (bbl/d) 15,400 NGLs (bbl/d) 6,100 Natural gas (Mcf/d) 115,000 (Boe/d) 51,000 $80 $42 $3 2017 Full Year Guidance Average daily production (boe/d) 50,000 to 52,000 Total capital expenditures ($ million) 125 Funds flow from operations1 ($ million) 195 Royalties2 (% of sales) 9.0 Operating costs3 ($ per boe) 13.25 to 13.75 Cash G&A costs3 ($ per boe) 3.50 to 4.00 2017 CAPITAL ALLOCATION ($ MILLION) Corporate (land, seismic, capitalized G&A) Conventional maintenance and integrity Lindbergh development and maintenance

1. Based on a WTI crude oil price of US $55.00/bbl, an AECO natural gas price of Cdn $3.25/Mcf and a $0.74 Cdn/USD exchange rate 2. Royalties are before impacts of commodity risk management activities 3. Per boe estimates based on high and low ends of production guidance

slide-5
SLIDE 5

5 CORPORATE PRESENTATION

2017 CAPITAL BUDGET OF $125 MILLION

2017 CAPITAL BUDGET PRIORITIES

  • Optimization of

Lindbergh Phase One production

  • Increase production to

approximately 18,000 bbl/d by end of 2017

  • Drill seven new well

pairs, two infill wells and expansion of associated infrastructure

  • Continue to focus on

safety, asset integrity and maintenance on conventional assets

  • Support ongoing
  • perations across

conventional portfolio

  • Progress with

engineering and design work on Lindbergh Phase Two

  • Phase Two expected to

add incremental 17,500 bbl/d nameplate capacity

  • Expect to be

approximately 70 percent complete design work by end of 2017

MAINTENANCE ENGINEERING OPTIMIZATION

slide-6
SLIDE 6

6 CORPORATE PRESENTATION

PRIORITIES: FOCUS ON THE THINGS WE CAN CONTROL Prudent capital spending

1

Cost reductions

2

Reduce indebtedness

3

Continue with asset dispositions

4

SHORT-TERM STRATEGY

slide-7
SLIDE 7

7 CORPORATE PRESENTATION

FOCUSING ON WHAT WE CAN CONTROL

DEALING WITH THE CURRENT ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

  • Generating strong production

despite conservative capital program

  • Lindbergh production continues

to exceed nameplate capacity of 12,500 bbl per day

Asset Optimization

  • Year to date significant savings in

cost structures:

  • ($85) million in operating costs
  • ($19) million in G&A
  • ($10) million in transportation

expenses

Reducing Costs

  • Consistent quarterly funds

flow despite weaker commodity prices

  • Funds flow stability supported

by risk management gains

  • Approximately $700 million over

past two years1

Strong Funds Flow

  • Reduced outstanding debt by

$203 million since the end of 2015

  • Undrawn $1.0 billion credit facility
  • Approximately $530 million of

cash on hand as of January 6, 2017

Debt Reduction1

1. As at September 30, 2016 2. Closed on January 6, 2017

Asset Sales

  • $250 million Lindbergh GORR2
  • Approximately $50 million in

additional dispositions completed in 2016

slide-8
SLIDE 8

8 CORPORATE PRESENTATION

THIRD QUARTER RESULTS SHOW CONTINUED PERFORMANCE IN DELIVERING RESULTS

FINANCIAL AND OPERATING HIGHLIGHTS

Exited the quarter with approximately $140 million of cash on hand and increased to approximately $530 million by January 6, 2017 Realized a total of $104 million of hedging gains in the quarter, including $41.6 million from the monetization of 2018 and 2019 commodity risk management contracts As at September 30, 2016:

  • Reduced total debt by $203 million

since December 31, 2015

  • Year over year, debt reduced by $416

million Three Months Ended September 30 Nine Months Ended September 30 2016 2015 2016 2015 Production (boe/d)1 55,137 74,239 57,966 72,580

  • Nat. gas (%)

39 40 39 43 Liquids (%) 61 60 61 57 Revenue(2) 250 296 706 891 Funds from operations 123 121 318 345 Capital expenditures 15 16 36 165 Realized price (after risk management)(3)($/boe) 49.28 43.40 44.42 44.97 Operating expenses ($/boe) 13.52 13.32 12.93 14.67 Cash G&A expense ($/boe) 2.92 3.54 3.31 3.59 Operating netbacks ($/boe) 32.13 25.48 28.25 24.93 Total debt4 1,653 2,069 ($ millions except per share and per boe amounts)

1. Production results include impact of asset disposition program 2. Includes impact of risk management activities and before adjusting for royalties 3. Includes other income 4. Total debt includes convertible debentures

slide-9
SLIDE 9

9 CORPORATE PRESENTATION

RISK MANAGEMENT

2017 WTI Crude Oil Fixed Hedges Volumes (bbl/d) 7,000 Fixed price (Cdn$/bbl) $72.73 Volumes (bbl/d) 8,000 Fixed price (US$/bbl) $45.76 Total WTI Hedge Volumes 15,000 Fixed price (Cdn$ equivalent/bbl)1 $66.04 2017 AECO Natural Gas Fixed Hedges Volumes (MMcf/d) 4.7 Fixed price (Cdn$/Mcf) $3.46

1. US dollar crude oil hedges converted to Canadian dollar equivalent using $0.76 Cdn/USD foreign exchange rate as at January 16, 2017

slide-10
SLIDE 10

10 CORPORATE PRESENTATION

8% 92%

LONG-TERM DEBT STRUCTURE IS PRIMARILY MADE UP OF PRIVATE TERM NOTES

BALANCE SHEET MANAGEMENT

Convertible Debentures Long-term Notes (Cdn $ millions) September 30, 2016 Credit Facilities/Bank line $0 Term Notes $1,526 Convertible Debentures $127 Total Senior Debt $1,653 Senior Debt to EBITDA1 3.2x Senior Debt to EBITDA Covenant 3.5x

1. Includes an additional $41 million of letters of credit and $38 million of finance leases in determination of covenant calculation.

DEBT COMPOSITION (AS AT SEPTEMBER 30, 2016) COVENANT COMPLIANCE (AS AT SEPTEMBER 30, 2016)

Approximately 88 percent of total debt is denominated in US$, causing reported debt balances to fluctuate with changes in the value of the Canadian dollar relative to the US$. As at September 30, 2016, Pengrowth has approximately 82 percent of its $1.1 billion US dollar denominated debt hedged at an average exchange rate of $0.78 Cdn/USD

Cash on hand as at January 6, 2017 of approximately $530 million not reflected in debt summary

slide-11
SLIDE 11

11 CORPORATE PRESENTATION

Average cost of term debt 5.76% Current cost of credit facilities 3.27%

BALANCE SHEET MANAGEMENT

$400 $265 $35 $116 $105 $195 $15 $25 £15 $127

Convertible Debentures (Cdn$) Long-term Notes (£) Long-term Notes (Cdn$) Long-term Notes (US$)

LONG-TERM DEBT MATURITIES (MILLIONS) 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

slide-12
SLIDE 12

12 CORPORATE PRESENTATION

Targets OBJECTIVE: DE-LEVER THE BALANCE SHEET

ASSET DISPOSITION STRATEGY

Lindbergh GORR Swan Hills Olds/Garrington Criteria for dispositions

De-levers the balance sheet (credit positive) Consistent with our strategy Economic Commodity price

  • ptionality trade off
slide-13
SLIDE 13

13 CORPORATE PRESENTATION

ACTIONS TAKEN OVER THE PREVIOUS 2 YEARS

PROPERTY DISPOSITION ACTIVITY

0.00 0.75 1.50 2.25 3.00 3.75 4.50 20 40 60 80 100 120

Sep-14 Nov-14 Jan-15 Mar-15 May-15 Jul-15 Sep-15 Nov-15 Jan-16 Mar-16 May-16 Jul-16 Sep-16

WTI AECO WTI Oil Price (US$/bbl) AECo Gas Prices (C$/GJ) Challenges to Success 1. Declining commodity price environment 2. Acquirers did not have cash 3. Not debt/credit accretive 4. Proposals did not reflect fair value

Swan Hills Sales Process Olds/Garrington Sales Process

slide-14
SLIDE 14

14 CORPORATE PRESENTATION

ACTIONS TAKEN OVER THE PREVIOUS 2 YEARS

PROPERTY DISPOSITION ACTIVITY

0.00 0.75 1.50 2.25 3.00 3.75 4.50 10 20 30 40 50 60

Nov-15 Jan-16 Mar-16 May-16 Jul-16 Sep-16 Nov-16

WTI AECO WTI Oil Price (US$/bbl) AECo Gas Prices (C$/GJ)

Lindbergh GORR Sales Process

slide-15
SLIDE 15

15 CORPORATE PRESENTATION

EXCELLENT TRANSACTION WITH SUPERIOR TRANSACTION METRICS

LINDBERGH GROSS OVERRIDING ROYALTY

  • On January 6, 2017 Penrgowth completed the sale of a 4.0%

GORR on all Lindbergh and Muriel Lake lands together with certain proprietary seismic for $250 million

  • Deal represents superior transaction metrics

– $250 million on 608 bbl/d (implied current royalty interest production) – ~$400,000/bbl/d flowing metric

  • The significant value received for the sale translates into

transaction metrics that reflect the high quality nature of the Lindbergh project and recognizes:

– Long life reserves at Lindbergh – Current production performance – Overall growth potential – Quality of product resulting in higher oil pricing at Lindbergh

  • Lindbergh generates some of the best operating metrics in the

industry and the royalty is not expected to materially impact the economics of current and future phases of Lindbergh

  • Transaction improves financial flexibility heading into 2017 and

leaves the Company with approximately $530 million of cash on hand as at January 6, 2017

4.0 %

$250 million

slide-16
SLIDE 16

16 CORPORATE PRESENTATION

TWO KEY ASSETS EXPECTED TO PROVIDE OVER $11 BILLION OF DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES

LONG-TERM DEVELOPMENT

Thermal Oil

Lindbergh SAGD Approximately $6.8 billion of future development potential

Montney Gas

Groundbirch/Bernadet Approximately $4.7 billion of future development potential

slide-17
SLIDE 17

17 CORPORATE PRESENTATION

TOP TIER SAGD OPERATION

LINDBERGH CHARACTERISTICS

Exceptional Operational SAGD Project Best in Class Economics Large Resource with Low Risk Growth

Lindbergh is one of the most economic, ultra long-life SAGD projects with sizable, organic low risk growth

slide-18
SLIDE 18

18 CORPORATE PRESENTATION

319 MMbbls

2P reserves1

APPROXIMATELY $6.8 BILLION OF LONG-TERM REINVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES

LINDBERGH THERMAL OIL

15,190 bbl/d

Q3/16 production

  • Large high quality resource
  • Approximately $6.8 billion of future capital

reinvestment potential (2P $4.9 billion, 2C $1.9

billion)1

  • Growth engine for production and value
  • Lindbergh proved plus probable reserve net

present value of $4.66 per share2

1. Company interest, GLJ Petroleum Consultants Ltd. reserves update as at September 30, 2016 2. Based on GLJ’s September 30, 2016 valuation and 547.7 million shares outstanding at September 30, 2016. Before income tax discounted at 10% per year using GLJ’s October 1, 2016 price forecast

slide-19
SLIDE 19

19 CORPORATE PRESENTATION

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0

A DEMONSTRATED HIGH QUALITY PROJECT WITH TOP QUARTILE PERFORMANCE

LINDBERGH

Instantaneous Steam-Oil Ratio (ISOR) Average well productivity (bbl/d)

Christina Lake (CVE) Christina Lake (MEG) Leismer Jackfish

Lindbergh

Foster Creek Tucker Hangingstone (ATH) Cold Lake (IMO – CSS) MacKay River Surmont Firebag Great Divide Long Lake Orion

Cold Lake Project Athabasca Project Peer Group Average More Desirable

Lindbergh is a top quartile SAGD reservoir with superior ISOR and well productivity characteristics

Source: TD Securities as at September 30, 2016

slide-20
SLIDE 20

20 CORPORATE PRESENTATION

LINDBERGH: THE PERFECT COMBINATION OF RESERVOIR FLUID AND ROCK

PEANUT BUTTER VS. HOCKEY PUCKS VS.

Athabasca Cold Lake/Lindbergh

slide-21
SLIDE 21

21 CORPORATE PRESENTATION

STRONG PERFORMANCE FROM FIRST PHASE AND PILOT CONTINUES

LINDBERGH THERMAL PROJECT

  • Commercial project

– Three well pads on production for ~ 21 months

  • Pad D05 with eight wells pairs
  • Pad D03 with seven well pairs
  • Pad D02 with five well pairs

– Third quarter production averaged 15,190 bbl per day1 at an average SOR of 2.46 – Average production for the five days ending December 31, 2016 was 15,654 bbl/d at an average SOR of 2.48

  • Original pilot project

– Pilot well pairs on production for ~ 55 months

  • Pilot consists of two well pairs

– Combined current production of 1,311 bbl per day – Pilot wells have recovered in excess of the anticipated EUR of 2.4 million barrels

  • 1. Includes pilot production
200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72 78 84 90 96 102 108 114 120 Type Curve Lindbergh Actual*

Bitumen Production (bbl/d) Month

Type Curve based

  • n 1.2 million bbl EUR

*Average producing day rates from original two pilot well pairs up to and including September 2016

Bitumen Production (bbl/d) Instantaneous Steam-Oil Ratio (ISOR) Commenced steaming

  • perations on

commercial facilities 2016 forecast average annual production 15,600 bbl/d Maintenance

  • utage
slide-22
SLIDE 22

22 CORPORATE PRESENTATION

GROWTH TO 18,000 BBL/D BY YEAR END 2017

LINDBERGH PHASE ONE OPTIMIZATION

  • Approximately $60 million allocated in 2017 capital budget towards the optimization of Phase

One production

– Expect to increase production from Lindbergh Phase One to approximately 18,000 bbl/d by the end of 2017

  • The optimization program includes the first new drilling since commercial production started in

April of 2015

  • 2017 optimization plans include:

– Drilling seven new well pairs – Two infill wells – Expansion of associated infrastructure

  • Optimization activities on three well pads are anticipated to generate strong pad specific IRR’s

– 30 to 50 percent at a WTI price of US $45.00/bbl – 55 to 90 percent at a WTI price of US $55.00/bbl

slide-23
SLIDE 23

23 CORPORATE PRESENTATION

COLD LAKE/LINDBERGH REGIONAL ADVANTAGES

COLD LAKE REGION = SUPERIOR ECONOMICS

  • Projects in the Cold Lake region such as Lindbergh benefit from a number of significant regional economic

advantage based on their bitumen quality and closer proximity to end markets HIGHER BITUMEN QUALITY = LOWER QUALITY DISCOUNTS

  • The higher API and lower level of contaminants (i.e. TAN1, metals, sulfur, etc.) of the bitumen in the region

results in materially lower quality dilbit2 differentials to benchmark WCS vs. heavier Athabasca bitumen » Cold Lake bitumen producers’ quality discounts have historically ranged from US$1.00/bbl - US$2.00/bbl3 vs. their Athabasca counterparts at US$2.50/bbl – US$5.00+/bbl » Lindbergh’s production is sold as Lloyd light blend ("LLB") and its quality discount is even lower (+/- US$0.25/bbl over the last 4 quarters) LOWER BLENDING REQUIREMENTS = HIGHER REALIZED PRICE

  • Cold Lake’s higher bitumen quality also results in lower diluent requirements (and costs) compared to

Athabasca peers » Producers in the Athabasca region are faced with diluent blending requirements ranging between 28% - 33%4 to achieve Enbridge’s pipeline spec depending on the project and season » Lindbergh’s blend ratio ranges between 26% - 30% LOWER TRANSPORTATION COSTS = HIGHER NETBACKS

  • Cold lake projects benefit from lower transportation costs given their closer proximity to Hardisty

» Lindbergh additionally benefits from an attractive transportation agreement with Husky » Lindbergh’s transportation cost is currently ~$3.00/bbl of dilbit compared to Fort McMurray SAGD projects which are expected to pay ~$5.00 - $6.00/bbl

1. Tan = Total acidity number 2. Dilbit is defined as the bitumen sales volumes plus the required diluent to meet pipeline specifications 3. Imperial Oilˈs Cold Lake Blend 4. Represents the proportion of diluent per barrel of dilbit

slide-24
SLIDE 24

24 CORPORATE PRESENTATION

LINDBERGH PROVIDING STRONG OPERATING CASH FLOWS

(Cdn $ unless noted otherwise)

Q4 2015 Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 WTI (US$/bbl) 42.17 33.52 45.60 44.94 WCS differential (US$/bbl) 14.48 14.24 13.31 13.47 WCS (US$/bbl) 27.69 19.28 32.29 31.47 FX (USD/Cdn) 0.75 0.73 0.78 0.77 WCS ($/bbl) 36.93 26.53 41.62 41.07 Blend price ($/bbl) 36.85 26.40 41.86 41.02 Diluent cost ($/bbl) (7.52) (11.08) (7.88) (6.83) Lindbergh Realized pricing ($/bbl) 29.33 15.32 33.98 34.19 Royalties ($/bbl) (0.41) (0.60) (0.60) (0.69) Operating expense ($/bbl) (9.86) (8.81) (7.81) (8.92) Transportation expense ($/bbl) (2.74) (2.86) (2.87) (2.86) Lindbergh heavy oil operating netbacks ($/boe) 16.32 3.05 22.70 21.72

Lindbergh is cash flow positive at US $29.50 WTI/bbl Break even NPV10 at US $45.79 WTI/bbl

Still generated positive netback despite low oil prices

slide-25
SLIDE 25

25 CORPORATE PRESENTATION

Even with a 4.0% GORR burden, Lindbergh’s operating netback remains the highest amongst its peers

PEER BENCHMARKING

$21.42 $20.17 $16.49 $15.79 $15.41 $10.75 ($6.80) ($10.00) ($5.00) $0.00 $5.00 $10.00 $15.00 $20.00 $25.00 $30.00 $35.00 Pengrowth Lindbergh Pengrowth Lindbergh w/4.0% GORR Cenovus Christina Lake MEG Christina Lake(1) Cenovus Foster Creek Suncor Firebag & Mackay(2) Athabasca Hangingstone

Operating Netback GORR Burden Operating costs Transportation Royalties

Q3 2016 OPERATING NETBACK ($ PER BBL)

Source: TD Securities

(1) Excludes impact of power revenue (2) Represents operating netback of non-upgraded bitumen from the Firebag and MacKay River in situ projects

slide-26
SLIDE 26

26 CORPORATE PRESENTATION

GLOBAL RESOURCES PRODUCTION 2014 COST CURVE

LINDBERGH COMPETES WITH LOW COST PRODUCTION

Onshore Middle East Oil Sands North American Shale Ultra Deepwater Onshore rest of world Onshore Russia Deepwater Extra heavy oil Offshore shelf $29 $57 $55 $54 $53 $49 $43 $72 $62 Average break even

Cost (US$ per barrel) Total 2020 liquid production (million boe/d)

Current price of WTI crude

Source: Rystad Energy Research and Analysis *Lindbergh break even based

  • n 2014 costs

Lindbergh break even $46*

slide-27
SLIDE 27

27 CORPORATE PRESENTATION

$500 $600 $700 $800 $900 May-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Feb-16 Jun-16

LINDBERGH PHASE 2 CAPITAL COSTS ARE DOWN 27 PERCENT

LINDBERGH PHASE TWO CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES

~ 27 percent reduction

Phase 2 Capital Costs

Steam Generation Capacity (bbl/d) 64,0001 Bitumen Capacity (bbl/d) 20,0002 Initial Capital ($million) $6203 Initial Capital Intensity Steam Capacity ($/bbl/d) $9,688 Nameplate Capacity (Bitumen) ($/bbl/d) $31,000

(1) Assumes a 90% utilization factor which includes scheduled maintenance and unscheduled downtime (2) At 20,000 bbl/d of bitumen steam capacity in constrained to 50,000 bbl/d (~2.5x ISOR) (3) Current Phase 2 capital cost estimated at $620 million (assumes third party financing for the co-generation units)

($ million)

slide-28
SLIDE 28

28 CORPORATE PRESENTATION

UNLOCKING SIGNIFICANT VALUE

LINDBERGH RESERVES UPDATE

31-Dec-2015 30-Sept-2016 Change Reserves MMbbls MMbbls % Proved (1P) 103.4 147.9 +43 Proved Plus Probable (2P) 263.4 319.1 +21 Proved Plus Probable Plus Possible (3P) 370.6 414.5 +12 Net Present Value 1 $million $million % Proved (1P) 808 1,186 +47 Proved Plus Probable (2P) 1,559 2,552 +63 Proved Plus Probable Plus Possible (3P) 2,098 3,155 +50

Update as at September 30, 2016 with Proved reserves increasing to 147.9 MMbbls and Proved Plus Probable reserves increasing to 319.1 MMbbls Update reflects the successful application approval for the expansion of the project to 30,000 bbl per day, inclusion of infill wells and reserves attributable to the CSS area Significant increase in value with Proved reserve Net Present Value increasing to $1.2 billion and Proved Plus Probable reserve value increasing to $2.6 billion1

  • 1. Based on GLJ’s September 30, 2016 valuation and 547.7 million shares outstanding at September 30, 2016. Before income tax discounted at 10% per year

using GLJ’s October 1, 2016 price forecast

Lindbergh Proved plus Probable reserve net present value of $4.66 per share1

slide-29
SLIDE 29

29 CORPORATE PRESENTATION

8.0 Tcf

Petroleum initially-in-place (PIIP)1

SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT INVENTORY

MONTNEY GAS

1,980 boe/d

Q3/16 production

1. Internal Company estimate 2. Company interest, GLJ Petroleum Consultants Ltd. reserves update as at December 31, 2015

  • Large high quality resource
  • Approximately $4.7 billion of future capital

reinvestment potential

− Groundbirch (2P $690 million, 2C $900 million)2 − Bernadet (Best estimate $3.1 billion)2

  • Over 900 net (unrisked) drilling locations
  • Growth engine for production and reserves
slide-30
SLIDE 30

30 CORPORATE PRESENTATION

MULTIPLE PLAYS WITH LONG-TERM GROWTH POTENTIAL

PENGROWTH MONTNEY OVERVIEW

Bernadet (Liquids-rich)

  • 36.2 sections (100 percent

working interest)

  • Pengrowth’s best estimate of

total PIIP in place is approximately 4.6 Tcf gas (raw)

  • Liquids yield expected to

range from 5 to 75 bbls/MMcf (sales) including primary upper, mid and lower Montney development

  • Expected to add 30 years of

flat life, non-thermal liquids inventory

  • Offsetting analogous

production type curves in all zones

Groundbirch (Dry gas)

  • 21 gross sections (90 percent

working interest)

  • Pengrowth’s best estimate of

total PIIP in place is approximately 3.7 Tcf gas (raw)

  • 28 million cubic feet/day
  • perated facility on-stream in

December 2010

  • 2 wells drilled in 2014
  • 2014 wells outperforming

2010 wells due to ongoing advances in fracing technology

Fracing technology has improved in the last four years. Productivity and EUR are expected to be greatly impacted by recent technological advances

slide-31
SLIDE 31

31 CORPORATE PRESENTATION

PROVIDE STRONG RETURNS THAT COMPETE WITH OIL PLAYS

MONTNEY PLAY ECONOMICS

Per Well Unrisked Metrics Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 DCET ($ million/well) 5.5 5.5 5.5 EUR (Bcf) 7.0 7.0 7.0 Liquids Yield (bbl/MMcf)2 45 45 45 ROR 21% 39% 61% PIR 0.4 0.9 1.5 NPV10 per well ($ million) $2.2 $5.2 $8.3 Estimate of Discovered PIIP 4.6 Tcf Gross/Net Unrisked Inventory 677/677 Estimate of Discovered PIIP 3.7 Tcf Gross/Net Unrisked Inventory 395/355 Per Well Unrisked Metrics Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 DCET ($ million/well) 5.5 5.5 5.5 EUR (Bcf) 8.0 8.0 8.0 Liquids Yield (bbl/MMcf)2 ROR 11% 26% 42% PIR <0.1 0.4 0.7 NPV10 per well ($ million) $0.2 $2.1 $3.8

Case 1 Case 2 Case 3

WTI (US$/bbl) $40.00 $50.00 $60.00 AECO natural gas (Cdn$/Mcf) $2.00 $2.50 $3.00

1. Based on internal estimates using a constant USD exchange rate of $0.75 and flat pricing. Assessment uses internal play type curves; type curves characterized as P50, peak normalized, from analogous wells in the in the lower Montney Turbidite (Bernadet) and upper Montney (Groundbirch), updated to recognize the application of new fracing technology. 2. Liquid yield estimates are based on initial rates.

Bernadet1 Groundbirch1

slide-32
SLIDE 32

32 CORPORATE PRESENTATION

0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 700.0 800.0 900.0 1000.0 6 12 18 24 30 36 P50 Type Curve 100/13-28-080-21W6/0 102/13-28-080-21W6/0 Historical Pengrowth Area Average (14 wells)

Month Production (Boe/d)

WELLS DRILLED IN 2014 SIGNIFICANTLY OUTPERFORMING 2010 (FIRST GENERATION) WELLS

GROUNDBIRCH MONTNEY WELL PERFORMANCE

2014 Well 2014 Well Initial 2014 IP 30 Rate (MMcf/d) 1.7 5.4 EUR (Bcf) 6.0 8.0 DCET ($ million/well) 7.4 6.5 Frac Stages 8-10 25-26 Proppant (tonnes/stage) 60 70

Production as at August 2016

Historical Pengrowth Area Average 2010 wells (14 wells)

slide-33
SLIDE 33

33 CORPORATE PRESENTATION

62.9 MMboe

2P reserves 1

MULTI-ZONE LIQUIDS DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES

OLDS/GARRINGTON

15,795 boe/d

Q3/16 production

  • Large, contiguous land base with access to

multi-tier development opportunities

  • Over 500 net (unrisked) drilling locations
  • Conservatively booked reserves

with significant contingent/prospective resources

  • Assets provide quick payout with half cycle

economics

1. Company interest, GLJ Petroleum Consultants Ltd. reserves update as at December 31, 2015

slide-34
SLIDE 34

34 CORPORATE PRESENTATION

DOMINANT POSITION WITH OPPORTUNITIES FOR GROWTH

OLDS/GARRINGTION DEVELOPMENT

  • Light oil (35o to 50o oil)

and liquids-rich natural gas with stacked (deep basin type) horizons

  • Large land foot print –

377,000 net acres (> 16 townships)

  • Over 480 gross

sections of Cardium rights

  • Prospective Cardium

sections 280 gross (150 net)

  • Technology continues

to unlock large new resource plays (Cardium, Glauc, Ellerslie, Elkton)

  • Extensive drilling

inventory that the breadth and depth of continues to grow

  • Over 4 years of tier 1

drilling inventory

  • Control of key

processing (~ 112 MMcf/d) facilities with an extensive pipeline system

  • Infrastructure of 1,370

km and 3rd party processing revenue

DEVELOPMENT INFRASTRUCTURE RESOURCE

slide-35
SLIDE 35

35 CORPORATE PRESENTATION

  • Technology continues to unlock new

resource plays

  • Stacked reservoirs (Cardium, Viking,

Mannville, Elkton, Pekisko and Wabamun)

  • Multiple zones with horizontal well

potential

  • Exploiting huge oil and gas in place:

− Cardium 3-6 MMbbl/section − Mannville 70-100+ bbl/mmcf (C3+) − Glauconitic ~8 bcf/section − Ellerslie 15-20 bcf/section (excluding unconventional) − Elkton − Oil 4-4.5 MMbbl/section − Gas 10 bcf/section with 40-50 bbl/MMcf

  • Extensive inventory - breadth and depth of

plays continues to be de-risked and grow

LIGHT OIL AND LIQUIDS-RICH GAS IN STACKED RESERVOIRS

OLDS/GARRINGTION

Cardium Second White Specks Viking Elkton Glauconitic Ellerslie Mannville

Horizontal potential in all layers

slide-36
SLIDE 36

36 CORPORATE PRESENTATION

EXECUTING ON WHAT IS IN OUR CONTROL

SUMMARY

  • Company delivering strong, consistent operating results
  • Reduced cost structures across the organization
  • Focused on preserving and improving financial strength
  • Reduced total debt by $203 million since year end 20151
  • Increased cash position to approximately $530 million following closing of the Lindbergh GORR sale on

January 6, 2017

  • Capital discipline in 2016 preserves balance sheet in face of low commodity price

environment, without significant impact on production levels

  • Long-term strategy remains unchanged with over $11 billion of long-term

development and resource opportunities

  • You should expect that we will continue to deliver on what we promise

1. As at September 30, 2016

slide-37
SLIDE 37

37 CORPORATE PRESENTATION

APPENDIX

slide-38
SLIDE 38

38 CORPORATE PRESENTATION

TOTAL DEBT BEFORE WORKING CAPITAL CONTINUITY

TOTAL DEBT CONTINUITY

(Cdn $ millions)

Total debt at December 31, 2015 1,856.5 Increase (decrease) due to: Foreign exchange impact of the strengthening Canadian dollar on US denominated debt (80.7) Foreign exchange impact of the strengthening Canadian dollar on UK denominated debt (5.1) Credit facilities paid down in 2016 (107.7) Convertible Debentures repurchased (10.2) Other 0.5 Total decrease (203.2) Total debt at September 30, 2016 1,653.3

Continuing with our strategy of reducing debt in 2016

slide-39
SLIDE 39

39 CORPORATE PRESENTATION

Even with a 4.0% GORR burden increasing operating costs slightly, Lindbergh still generates

  • ne of the highest operating netbacks amongst its peers

PEER BENCHMARKING

Q3 2016 OPERATING COSTS ($ PER BBL)

Source: TD Securities (1) Represents operating netback of non-upgraded bitumen from the Firebag and MacKay River in situ projects (2) Excludes impact of power revenue

slide-40
SLIDE 40

40 CORPORATE PRESENTATION

Length

Pay Thickness

Pilot Wells Phase 1 Wells

TRADING LOWER IP RATES FOR GREATER RECOVERABLE RESERVES

LINDBERGH COMMERCIAL PROJECT

Greater net pay = larger recoverable reserves Increase in net pay by 1 m adds ~100 Mbbls

  • f anticipated recoverable bitumen

Relative Permeability 10 Ohm Cutoff 6 Ohm Cutoff

  • Low permeability = lower IP

rates

  • Longer production profile
  • Lower decline
  • Price curve in contango

Decreasing Permeability

slide-41
SLIDE 41

41 CORPORATE PRESENTATION

MULTI-ZONE DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES

MONTNEY DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL

U3 M1 L1 – Upper L1 –Lower

U3 U2 U1 – Upper U1 –Lower Four prospective and proven sub-zones thought to exist within the Montney 2014 Groundbirch program targeted the U1 Upper and U2 BERNADET GROUNDBIRCH

slide-42
SLIDE 42

42 CORPORATE PRESENTATION

ADVISORIES

Caution Regarding Forward Looking Information: This presentation contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of securities laws, including the "safe harbour" provisions of Canadian securities legislation and the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking information is often, but not always, identified by the use of words such as "anticipate", "believe", "expect", "plan", "intend", "forecast", "target", "project", "guidance", "may", "will", "should", "could", "estimate", "predict" or similar words suggesting future outcomes or language suggesting an outlook. In particular, forward-looking statements in this presentation include, but are not limited to: increasing focus on oil and gas and liquids development; statements with respect anticipated 2017 capital budget with Lindbergh production being optimized to 18,000 bbl/d; capital budget of $125 million; expected daily production in 2017 of 50,000 to 52,000 boe/d; focus in budget on safety, maintenance and integrity activities; expectation of 2017 capital budget to be fully funded from

  • perating funds flow; hedging; 2017 full year guidance for production, capital expenditures, funds flow from operations, royalties, operating costs and cash G&A; expectation of $11 billion of long-term

development and resource opportunities; expected large accumulations, long life assets, low declines, low cost structure and low sustaining capital of the resource base; short term strategy of prudent capital spending, cost reductions, debt reduction and continued asset dispositions; asset optimization; upcoming long term debt maturities; asset disposition strategy, criteria for dispositions and targeted disposition candidates; development opportunities at Lindbergh and Groundbirch/Bernadet; Lindbergh characteristics of best in class economics, large resource with low risk growth, ultra-long life and sizable, organic low risk growth opportunities; $6.8 billion of future capital reinvestment potential at Lindbergh; Lindbergh type curves and expected ultimate recoveries; high bitumen quality and low quality discounts at Lindbergh; lower blending requirements and higher expected realized pricing at Lindbergh; lower transportation costs and expected higher netbacks at Lindbergh; expected high operating netbacks at Lindbergh; expected breakeven pricing at Lindbergh; expected phase two capital costs, steam capacity and nameplate capacity of the second commercial phase at Lindbergh; $4.7 billion of future capital reinvestment potential at Groundbirch/Bernadet; 900 net (unrisked) drilling locations at Groundbirch/Bernadet; anticipated liquids yields at Bernadet; expectation of thirty years of flat life, non-thermal liquids inventory at Bernadet; expected productivity at Groundbirch/Bernadet; Montney play economics; Groundbirch type curves and expected ultimate recovery; expected drilling inventory at Olds/Garrington; multiple zones with horizontal well potential at Olds/Garrington; extensive inventory at Olds/Garrington; and expectation of ability to deliver on what is promised. By their very nature, the forward-looking statements included in this presentation involve inherent risks and uncertainties, both general and specific, and risks that predictions, forecasts, projections and other forward-looking statements will not be achieved. We caution readers not to place undue reliance on these statements as a number of important factors could cause the actual results to differ materially from the beliefs, plans, objectives, expectations and anticipations, estimates and intentions expressed in such forward-looking statements. These factors include, but are not limited to: the volatility of oil and gas prices; production and development costs and capital expenditures; the imprecision of reserve estimates and estimates of recoverable quantities of oil, natural gas and liquids; Pengrowth's ability to replace and expand

  • il and gas reserves; environmental claims and liabilities; incorrect assessments of value when making acquisitions; increases in debt service charges; ability to remain in compliance of debt covenants and the

availability of credit; the loss of key personnel; the marketability of production; defaults by third party operators; unforeseen title defects; fluctuations in foreign currency and exchange rates; inadequate insurance coverage; changes in environmental or other legislation applicable to our operations, and our ability to comply with current and future environmental and other laws and regulations; actions by governmental or regulatory authorities including changes in royalty structures and programs and income tax laws or changes in tax laws and incentive programs relating to the oil and gas industry laws; our ability to access external sources of debt and equity capital on acceptable terms, which will be negatively impacted and our bank line made unavailable should we violate a debt covenant, and the implementation of greenhouse gas emissions legislation. Readers are cautioned that the foregoing list of factors that may affect future results is not exhaustive. When relying on our forward-looking statements to make decisions with respect to Pengrowth, investors and others should carefully consider the foregoing factors and other uncertainties and potential events. Furthermore, the forward-looking statements contained in this presentation are made as of the date of this presentation and we do not undertake any obligation to update publicly or to revise any of the included forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by applicable law. The forward-looking statements contained in this presentation are expressly qualified by this cautionary statement Additional Information – Supplemental Non-IFRS Measures Readers should refer to Pengrowth’s most recent Annual Information Form under the heading “Business Risks” in the most recent year-end Management’s Discussion and Analysis and most recent consolidated financial statements, management information circular, quarterly reports, material change reports and news releases for additional information with respect to the Company, its operations and risks faced. Copies of our Canadian public filings are available on SEDAR at www.sedar.com. Our U.S. public filings, including our most recent annual report form 40-F as supplemented by

  • ur filings on form 6-K, are available at

www.sec.gov.edgar.shtml. In addition to providing measures prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), Pengrowth presents supplemental non-IFRS measures, operating netbacks and funds flow from operations. These measures do not have any standardized meaning prescribed by IFRS and therefore are unlikely to be comparable to similar measures presented by other companies. These supplemental non-IFRS measures are provided to assist readers in determining Pengrowth’s ability to generate cash from operations. Pengrowth believes these measures are useful in assessing operating performance and liquidity of Pengrowth’s ongoing business on an overall basis. These measures should be considered in addition to, and not as a substitute for, net income, funds flow from operating activities and other measures of financial performance and liquidity reported in accordance with IFRS. Caution Regarding Engineering Terms: When used herein, the term "boe" means barrels of oil equivalent on the basis of one boe being equal to one barrel of oil or NGLs or 6,000 cubic feet of natural gas (6 Mcf: 1 bbl). Barrels of oil equivalent may be misleading, particularly if used in isolation. A conversion ratio of six Mcf of natural gas to one boe is based on an energy equivalency conversion method primarily applicable at the burner tip and does not represent a value equivalency at the wellhead. In addition, given that the value ratio based on the current price of crude oil as compared to natural gas is significantly different from the energy equivalency of 6:1, utilizing a conversion on a six to one basis may be misleading as an Indication of value. The estimates of reserves and future net revenue for individual properties may not reflect the same confidence level as estimates of reserves and future net revenue for all properties, due to the effects of aggregation. In addition, Pengrowth uses the following frequently-recurring industry terms in this presentation: “bbls” refers to barrels, “Mbbls” refers to a thousand barrels, “MMbbls refers to a million barrels, “Mboe” refers to a thousand barrels of oil equivalent, “MMboe” refers to a million barrels of oil equivalent, “Mcf” refers to thousand cubic feet, “Bcf” refers to billion cubic feet.

slide-43
SLIDE 43

43 CORPORATE PRESENTATION

ADVISORIES

Note to US Readers Current SEC reporting requirements permit oil and gas companies, in their filings with the SEC, to disclose probable and possible reserves, in addition to the required disclosure of proved reserves. Under current SEC requirements, net quantities of reserves are required to be disclosed, which requires disclosure on an after royalties basis and does not include reserves relating to the interests of others. Because we are permitted to prepare our reserves information in accordance with Canadian disclosure requirements, we have included contingent resources, disclosed reserves before the deduction of royalties and interests of

  • thers and determined and disclosed our reserves and the estimated future net cash therefrom using forecast prices and costs.

See "Presentation of our Reserve Information" in our most recent Annual Information Form or Form 40-F for more information. We report our production and reserve quantities in accordance with Canadian practices and specifically in accordance with NI 51-101. These practices are different from the practices used to report production and to estimate reserves in reports and other materials filed with the SEC by companies in the United States. We incorporate additional information with respect to production and reserves which is either not generally included or prohibited under rules of the SEC and practices in the United States. We follow the Canadian practice of reporting gross production and reserve volumes; however, we also follow the United States practice of separately reporting these volumes on a net basis (after the deduction of royalties and similar payments). We also follow the Canadian practice of using forecast prices and costs when we estimate our reserves. The SEC permits, but does not require, the disclosure of reserves based on forecast prices and costs. We include herein estimates of proved, proved plus probable and possible reserves, as well as contingent resources. The SEC permits, but does not require the inclusion of estimates of probable and possible reserves in filings made with it by United States oil and gas companies. The SEC does not permit the inclusion of estimates of contingent resources in reports filed with it by United States companies. Caution Regarding Reserves: All amounts are stated in Canadian dollars unless otherwise specified. All reserves, resources, reserve life index, and production information herein is based upon Pengrowth’s company interest working interest share of reserves or production plus Pengrowth’s royalty interest, being Pengrowth’s interest in production and payment that is based on the gross production at the wellhead, before royalties and using GLJ’s January 1, 2016 forecast prices and costs. Some Lindbergh specific reserves and resources information is based on a GLJ September 30, 2016 reserves and resources update and use GLJ’s October 1, 2016 forecast prices and costs. Numbers presented may not add due to rounding. The estimates of reserves and future net revenues for individual properties may not reflect the same confidence level as estimates of reserves and future net revenue for all properties, due to effects of aggregation. When used herein, the term "boe" means barrels of oil equivalent on the basis of one boe being equal to one barrel of oil or NGLs

  • r 6,000 cubic feet of natural gas (6 mcf: 1 bbl). Barrels of oil equivalent may be misleading, particularly if used in isolation. A conversion ratio of six mcf of natural gas to one boe is based on an energy

equivalency conversion method primarily applicable at the burner tip and does not represent a value equivalency at the wellhead. Caution Regarding Well Test and Initial Production (“IP”) and Steam/Oil Ratios Results This presentation makes references to well test results, IP rates and steam/oil ratios for certain properties. These results are not necessarily representative of long-term well performance or ultimate recoveries and are subject to various performance factors including geological formation, duration of test, pressure and production declines. Some wells will experience significant and immediate decreases in production rates. Contingent Resource Assessments: Contingent resources are those quantities of petroleum estimated 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 factors such as economic, legal, environmental, political and regulatory matters or a lack of

  • markets. Contingent resources are further classified in accordance with the level of certainty associated with the estimates. Contingent resources do not constitute, and should not be confused with, reserves.

There is no certainty that it will be commercially viable to produce any portion of the contingent resources. The accuracy of resource estimates is, in part, a function of the quality and quantity of available data and of engineering and geological interpretation and judgment. These resource volumes are classified as a resource rather than a reserve because they are contingent upon further reservoir studies, delineation drilling and facility design, preparation of firm development plans, regulatory application approval and company approvals. The size of the resource estimate could be positively impacted, potentially in a material amount, if additional delineation wells determine that the aerial extent, reservoir quality and/or the thickness of the reservoir is larger than what is currently estimated based on the interpretation of seismic and well control. The size of the resource estimate could be negatively impacted, potentially in a material amount, if additional delineation wells determine that the aerial extent, reservoir quality and/or the thickness of the reservoir are less than what is currently estimated based on the interpretation of the seismic and well control. A best estimate is the estimate of the quantity of resource that will be recovered from the accumulation, which under probabilistic methodology reflects a fifty percent confidence level. A low estimate is the estimate of the quantity of resource that will be recovered from the accumulation, which under probabilistic methodology reflects a ninety percent confidence level. A high estimate is the estimate of the quantity of resource that will be recovered from the accumulation, which under probabilistic methodology reflects a ten percent confidence level.

slide-44
SLIDE 44

44 CORPORATE PRESENTATION

2100, 222 – 3rd Avenue SW Calgary, AB, Canada T2P 0B4

Tel 403.233.0224 Toll-Free 1.800.223.4122 Fax 403.265.6251

INVESTOR RELATIONS

Toll-Free 1.855.336.8814 Email investorrelations@pengrowth.com Website www.pengrowth.com