Shale Plays and The Changing MLP Landscape

October 2011

Risks and Forward-Looking Statements

This presentation includes “forward-looking statements” as defined by the Securities and Exchange Commission. All statements, other than statements of historical facts, included in this presentation that address activities, events or developments that the partnership expects, believes or anticipates will or may occur in the future are forward-looking statements. Words such as “anticipates,” “intends,” “plans,” “projects,” “believes,” and similar words are intended to identify such forward-looking statements. These statements are based on certain assumptions made by the partnership based on its experience and perception of historical trends, current conditions, expected future developments and other factors it believes are appropriate in the circumstances. Such statements are subject to a number of assumptions, risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond the control of the partnership, which may cause our actual results to differ materially from those implied or expressed by the forward-looking statements. These include risks relating to financial performance and results, availability of sufficient cash flow to pay distributions and execute our business plan, prices and demand for natural gas and oil, our ability to replace reserves and efficiently develop and produce our current reserves and other important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected as described in more detail in our reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which are available at www.sec.gov or on our web site, or by calling us at 713-651-1144. We undertake no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information or future events. Investors are urged to consider closely the disclosure in our Form 10-K, available from us at www.evenergypartners.com or from the SEC at www.sec.gov.

2

EV Energy Partners, L.P.

■ Upstream MLP Created in September 2006 (Nasdaq: EVEP)

■ GP Ownership ► EnerVest & Management (76.25%) ► Encap (23.75%)

■ 34.2 million outstanding units

► $2.9 billion enterprise value ■ Strong balance sheet

■ Current yield of 4.3% ■ Solid returns since IPO

► Total return 320% ► Compound annual rate of return

38%

3 Note: Current yield based on $0.761 per unit 2Q11 distribution paid on

August 12, 2011 and unit price as of September 22, 2011.

Compound Annual Return – Last 3 Years

Note: Closing prices as of September 22, 2011 and AMZX as of September 16, 2011 - Upstream MLPs* does not include EVEP

Why EV Energy Partners?

■ EnerVest Provides Operating and A&D Leverage and Scale

■ Proven Track Record in Acquisitions

■ Multiple Acquisition Sources

■ Diverse Set of Properties with Organic Growth Potential

■ Demonstrated Conservative Capital Structure and Financing Philosophy

■ Utica Shale Upside

4

5

EVEP Assets

EnerVest Operations

■ EnerVest is recognized as one of the largest and most successful managers of oil and gas assets for institutional investors

■ Experienced and disciplined from 19 year track record of demonstrated success

■ EnerVest has sizeable operating base and platform

► > 2.5 Tcfe of Proved Reserves

► ~370 MMcfe/d

► ~3.6 million acres under lease

► Over $4.5 billion of acquisitions since inception

■ 750+ employees

■ Recently closed Fund XII with $1.5 billion in equity capital commitments

■ EnerVest operates 93% of EVEP’s assets

EVEP: A Strong Strategic Partnership with EnerVest

$13.7

$36.1

$-

$5.0

$10.0

$15.0

$20.0

$25.0

$30.0

$35.0

$40.0

Conventional Onshore 2011 YTD

All 2011 YTD

A&D

Ass

et T

rans

actio

n Va

lue

($B)

MLP Acquisition

Other

Upstream MLPs have Played a Large Role in the A&D Market

■ MLPs still play a larger role in the conventional asset market

% MLP Acquisitions 22% 8% Source: RBC Capital Markets.

6

Shale Gas: A Game Changer

(1) (2)

(1)

177 Tcf

2,300+ Tcf

(3)

Top 5 U.S. Gas Shales Resource

Potential

(2)

Additional Gas Shale Resource Potential

100+ Years Supply

(1) Source: EIA. Current based on 2008 data. (2) Source: Wall Street Estimates.

7

Shale Plays – a Huge Part of US Gas Production Growth

Source: EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2011

US Dry Gas trillion cubic feet per year

$0.0

$5.0

$10.0

$15.0

$20.0

$25.0

$30.0

$35.0

$40.0

$45.0

$50.0

$55.0

$60.0

$65.0

A&D

Ass

et T

rans

actio

ns (i

n bi

llion

s)

Source: RBC 8

MLP Shale Entry Timing is Key!

Illustrative Type Curve

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

0 100 200 300 400Months

Gas (

Mcfpm

)

Ideal MLP entry point!

9

Characteristics Favorable to EnerVest Barnett Shale Fayetteville Shale Haynesville Shale Marcellus Shale Eagle Ford Shale Bakken Shale Utica Shale

Large Core √ √Proven Type Curve √ √ √ √Old News? √ √ ?Reasonable Land Costs √ √ √Favorable Regulation √ √ √ √ √ √Infrastructure √ √ √Production for Sale √ √Liquids Content √ √ √ √ √Other Formations √ √ √ √ √Mostly HBP √ √ √Totals 9 7 7 3 3 3 3

MLP Shale Investment Criteria Summary

Barnett and Fayetteville Shales are MLP-Suitable!

10

EVEP - Five Years of Growth and Asset Diversification

− 817 Bcfe − 8 Basins

− 51 Bcfe − 2 Basins

(1) Based on SEC December 31, 2010 reserve report. Includes the Barnett Shale acquisition.

■ 250% growth in Proved Reserves and production per common unit since IPO

► CAGR of 30%

September 2006 (at IPO) December 31, 2010 (1)

Appalachia69%

Monroe31%

San Juan9%

Permian8%

Central Texas7%

Michigan6% Mid–Con.

10%

Monroe8%

Barnett Shale38%

Appalachia15%

11

Wichita

on

Archer

Clay

Montague

Cooke

Denton

WiseJackYoung

TarrantParker

Palo PintoStephens

Eastland

Brown

San SabaLampasas

Mills

Comanche

Erath

Hood

Somervell

Hamilton

Coryell

Bosque

Bell

McLennan

Hill

JohnsonEllis

Wichita

on

Archer

Clay

Montague

Cooke

Denton

WiseJackYoung

TarrantParker

Palo PintoStephens

Eastland

Brown

San SabaLampasas

Mills

Comanche

Erath

Hood

Somervell

Hamilton

Coryell

Bosque

Bell

McLennan

Hill

JohnsonEllis

Oil

Gas

Oil/Cond/Gas

Core Tier I

Acquisition Acreage

Barnett Shale Highlights ■ World-class unconventional natural gas

accumulation serving as the source, seal, and reservoir

■ Produces ~6 Bcf / day from ~14,000 wells (10% of US production as of May 2011)

■ Ongoing Recovery and EUR improvement Acquisition Highlights ■ 301 Bcfe of proved reserves (71% gas,

39% Proved Developed) ■ 254 gross productive wells at acquisition ■ 295 identified drilling locations ■ 3-D seismic across all acreage 2011 Developments ■ Capital expenditures of $36MM ■ Drill ≈ 42 wells with 1-2 rigs

► Combination of 500’ spaced & 250’ spaced PUD’s

► 34 already drilled (drilling 35th) ■ Subsequent Add-on acquisitions

Barnett Shale: EVEP’s First Shale Entry

12

Dominant Ohio Position

Combined Acreage

Largest Producer in Ohio

■ Overall EnerVest Position ■ Producing assets acquired in

5 separate transactions since 2003

► Over 8,000 gross wells ► 85 MMcfe/d gross production

(51 MMcfe/d net) ► Significant operating

infrastructure ► 1.2 mm gross acres ► ~765,000 net Utica acres

■ EVEP Position ► Net production 15 MMcfe/d ► > 600,000 gross acres ► ~159,000 net Utica acres

13

EVEP Utica Position

■ EVEP Net Utica Leasehold ► 159,000 net acres (22,000 in CHK JV) ► ORRI on ~ 240,000 net acres

• 80,000 net acres associated with CHK JV

► EnerVest/EVEP operate ~400,000 gross acres

■ Future Plans / De-risking ► 18 wells drilled or drilling ► 53 wells permitted; others planned ► CHK well results confirm expectations ► Specific development/financing plans

being refined ► CHK de-risking continues

► EnerVest/EVEP Utica will be self funding

► Considering JV’s ► Considering Sale ► Considering Producing Property Swap

Drilling/Drilled Wells Permits

EVEP JV Acreage

EVEP Non-JV Acreage EnerVest Acreage

14

Ohio Utica Acreage Activity

Ashtabula County: CHK, EV

Geauga County: CHK, EV

Portage County: CHK, CNX

Trumbull County: CHK, EV, CRZO

Mahoning County: CHK, EV, CNX

Columbiana County: CHK, GPOR, EV

Jefferson County: CHK, CNX, HES, GPOR

Harrison County: CHK, CNX, HES, GPOR

Belmont County: CNX, HES, GPOR Guernsey County:

EV, CNX, HES, GPOR, PDC Noble County: CNX, PDC

Muskingum County: EV

Tuscawaras County: CHK, EV, CNX, GPOR

Stark County: EV, CHK

Carroll County: CHK, EV, REXX, GPOR, CRZO

Operator Net Acreage

Chesapeake 1,250,000 EnerVest entities 765,000 Hess 185,000 CONSOL Energy ~100,000Gulfport Energy 57,500 PDC Energy 30,000 Carrizo / Avista 15,000 Rexx Energy 11,000 Exxon-Mobil NA

15

Acreage values have increased from $500 / acre in 2004 to $6,000+ / acre in 2011!

Conclusions

■ Maturing shales provide huge potential expansion of market for upstream MLPs

■ Upstream MLPs need to continue to manage overall portfolio ► Organic growth provides stability of

production and reserves ► Acquisitions provide incremental growth

■ Upstream MLPs should not be shale first

movers

16