Ann: Operational Update, page-23

needed to better understand PSDM so i thought i'd share the results from ChatGPT

The decision to invest in Post-Stack Depth Migration (PSDM) isn't solely based on whether the initial 3D seismic results are positive or negative. Instead, it's based on the complexity of the subsurface geology and the specific challenges posed by the area's seismic velocity variations. Here are some considerations that influence the decision to use PSDM:

When to Consider PSDM:

Complex Geology: If the survey area has complex geological features like salt domes, overthrusts, or significant lateral velocity variations, PSDM can provide a clearer image of the subsurface. This clarity is crucial for accurate interpretation, regardless of whether initial results are positive or negative.
Uncertain Velocity Model: When the subsurface velocity model is uncertain or shows significant variation, PSDM can help refine the model and improve the depth imaging, leading to more reliable interpretations.
Depth Imaging Necessity: In regions where depth rather than time imaging is critical for understanding the geological structure (e.g., in deepwater exploration or when targeting specific geological formations), PSDM is often a necessary step.
Data Quality and Resolution: If the initial 3D seismic data is of high quality but the interpretation is challenging due to structural complexities, PSDM can enhance the resolution and accuracy of the depth positioning, making it easier to delineate prospective zones.

Investment Considerations:

Cost vs. Benefit: PSDM is more expensive and time-consuming than traditional post-stack time migration methods. The decision to use PSDM should be based on a cost-benefit analysis, considering the potential for improved accuracy against the additional cost and time investment.
Risk Reduction: If the initial results are inconclusive or suggest a high-risk drilling scenario, PSDM can reduce exploration risk by providing a clearer picture, which might justify the additional investment.
Follow-up to Positive Results: If initial results are positive, PSDM might still be recommended to refine the subsurface image, especially if the area is known for its complexity or if the initial data suggests there might be more to uncover. The goal here is to ensure the accuracy of the initial positive findings and to optimize the development plan.
Industry Trends: It's also worth considering industry trends and technological advancements. In some cases, the industry standard might lean towards using advanced techniques like PSDM even in less complex settings due to the overall benefits they provide in terms of data quality and risk mitigation.

In summary, the decision to use PSDM should be based on geological complexity, data quality, exploration risk, and cost-benefit analysis, rather than solely on whether the initial 3D results were positive or negative. It's a strategic choice aimed at reducing uncertainty and enhancing the reliability of subsurface interpretations.

Perspective on Buru PSDM Decision:

Buru Energy's decision to employ PSDM after initial fast-track processing is a prudent and strategic move. The fast-track processing has already revealed significant data quality improvements and new areas of prospectivity, which is encouraging. However, the true value of seismic data, especially in complex geological settings, is often fully realized only after applying more sophisticated processing techniques like PSDM.

PSDM is not just a routine step in seismic processing; it's a decision that indicates a commitment to extracting the maximum possible value from seismic data. This technique can provide a more accurate and detailed understanding of the subsurface, which is invaluable in reducing geological and operational risks associated with hydrocarbon exploration and development.

Depth Accuracy: Depth migration, especially in complex geological settings, can significantly enhance the accuracy of the seismic image. This is crucial for delineating the structure and stratigraphy of the reservoir accurately, which in turn, can influence drilling decisions, reduce the risk of dry or suboptimal wells, and optimize reservoir management.

Investment Justification: The choice to invest in PSDM reflects a strategic approach to asset development. It signifies that Buru Energy is not just looking for short-term gains but is committed to thoroughly understanding its assets to make informed, long-term development decisions. This depth of understanding could be a decisive factor in the success of the Rafael project.

Strategic Partnering: The detailed insights from PSDM could be a significant factor in attracting and securing the right strategic partners. Sophisticated partners often seek projects where the operator has a deep understanding of the asset's geology and a commitment to leveraging advanced technologies for de-risking and optimizing development.

Technological Leadership: Employing advanced seismic processing techniques like PSDM positions Buru Energy as a technologically adept player in the industry. This could enhance its reputation and attract attention from investors and partners who value technological excellence in resource development.

Economic Implications: While PSDM is more costly and time-consuming, the potential benefits in terms of more accurate reservoir characterization and reduced exploration and development risks could outweigh the initial investment. It's a strategic expenditure that could significantly impact the economic viability of the Rafael project.

In conclusion, Buru Energy's decision to proceed with PSDM is a testament to their commitment to thorough and advanced exploration methodologies. It's a decision that aligns with best practices in the industry, particularly for assets with complex geology or significant potential. By opting for PSDM, Buru is not just enhancing its chances of project success but also positioning itself as a meticulous and technologically forward-thinking operator in the competitive landscape of hydrocarbon exploration and development.