IP Library Granted Patent US 12,585,037
Granted Patent B2
US 12,585,037 · App. 17/806,627 · Granted Mar 24, 2026

Method and system for augmented inversion and uncertainty quantification for characterizing geophysical bodies

Inventors: Dongzhuo Li (Katy, TX); Huseyin Denli (Basking Ridge, NJ); Cody MacDonald (Houston, TX); Kyle J. Basler-Reeder (Spring, TX)
Assignee: ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company
G01V1/50G01V1/46G01V20/00G01V2210/1234
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 12,585,037
App. No.
17/806,627
Granted
Mar 24, 2026
Kind
B2
Abstract

A computer-implemented method for augmented inversion and uncertainty quantification for characterizing geophysical bodies is disclosed. The method includes machine-learning-augmented inversion that also facilitates the characterization of uncertainties in geophysical bodies. The method may further estimate wavelets without a well-log calibration, thereby enabling a pre-discovery exploration phase when well log data is unavailable. The machine learning component incorporates a priori knowledge about the subsurface and physics, such as distributions of expected rock types and rock properties, geological structures, and wavelets, through learning from examples. The methodology also allows for conditioning the characterization with the information extracted a priori about the geobodies, such as probabilities of rock types, using other analysis tools. Thus, the conditioning strategy may make the inversion more robust even when a priori distributions are not well balanced. Using the method, a scenario testing workflow may evaluate different candidate subsurface models, facilitating the management of uncertainty in decision-making processes.

Claims (89)

1 . A computer-implemented method of performing geophysical inversion comprising:

performing a training step independent of measured data for a subsurface region to generate a machine-learned model, the training step using direct probabilistic modeling of geologic priors of at least one aspect of rock types, facies, or fluid types thereby tailoring the machine-learned model to the at least one aspect of rock types, facies, or fluid types;

accessing the measured data for the subsurface region;

solving an inversion problem by:

(i) inputting the measured data and an initial solution using the machine-learned model tailored in the at least one aspect to rock types, facies, or fluid types;

(ii) generating an inversion solution based on the measured data and the initial solution tailored in the at least one aspect to the rock types, the facies or the fluid types;

(iii) determining whether to continue iterating;

(iv) responsive to determining to continue iterating, iterating back to (ii) to generate the inversion solution that is updated and based on the measured data and the initial solution; and

responsive to determining not to continue iterating, drilling a well or extracting hydrocarbons from the well using the inversion solution tailored in the at least one aspect to the rock types, the facies or the fluid types.

2 . The method of claim 1 , wherein solving the inversion problem tailored in the at least one aspect to the rock types, the facies, or the fluid types comprises conditioning inversion based on scenarios of the rock types, the facies, or the fluid types; and

wherein the conditioning of the inversion is based on the scenarios of at least one of the rock types, the facies, or the fluid types obtained from seismic processing tools independent from priors based on knowledge bases and upstream to the inversion.

3 . The method of claim 1 , wherein solving the inversion problem tailored in the at least one aspect to at least one of the rock types, the facies or the fluid types comprises generating a function (f) that maps from latent space Z into parameter space of subsurface properties tailored to the rock types, the facies, or the fluid types.

4 . The method of claim 1 , further comprising accessing prior subsurface data;

wherein the prior subsurface data comprises rock types scenarios or facies scenarios;

wherein the machine-learned model comprises an augmented forward model based on machine-learning with the rock types scenarios or the facies scenarios; and

wherein solving the inversion problem is augmented based on the machine-learned model for the rock types or the facies scenarios.

5 . The method of claim 1 , wherein determining whether to continue iterating is based on the machine-learned model.

6 . The method of claim 5 , wherein the machine-learned model by:

comparing a solution generated by the machine-learned model with the inversion solution; and

determining whether to continue iterating based on the comparison.

7 . The method of claim 1 , wherein the measured data and the initial solution are separately input to generate the inversion solution.

8 . The method of claim 1 , wherein the machine-learned model generates a plurality of distinct and separate initial solutions;

wherein a plurality of iterative solutions are generated by solving the inversion problem based on the plurality of distinct and separate initial solutions; and

wherein the machine-learned model is used to evaluate the plurality of iterative solutions to determine whether to continue iterating.

9 . The method of claim 1 , wherein performing the training step consists of using training examples.

10 . The method of claim 9 , wherein the training examples comprise one or more rock type distributions or one or more geophysical property distributions.

11 . A computer-implemented method of machine learning-augmented geophysical inversion comprising:

accessing measured data for a subsurface region;

accessing prior subsurface data;

accessing conditioning data;

forming an augmented forward model independent of the measured data for the subsurface region based on:

a machine-learning model representing the prior subsurface data conditioned with the conditioning data, and

a physics model mapping output of the machine-learning model to seismic data thereby interlinking a direct physical relationship of at least one of rock types, facies, or fluid types with the seismic data;

initializing, using the augmented forward model, a plausible model by sampling latent space of a priori network model;

solving an inversion problem by:

(i) inputting the measured data and the plausible model using the augmented forward model tailored in the at least one aspect to rock types, facies, or fluid types;

(ii) generating, based on the measured data and the plausible model, one or more solutions which are consistent with the seismic data, the prior subsurface data and the conditioning data;

(iii) determining whether to continue iterating;

(iv) responsive to determining to continue iterating, iterating back to (ii) to generate the one or more solutions that is updated and based on the measured data and the plausible model; and

responsive to determining not to continue iterating, drilling a well or using the well to extract hydrocarbons using the one or more solutions.

12 . The method of claim 11 , wherein a distribution of latent space vectors is based on a normal distribution during the inversion, such that solving the inversion problem traverses within a subspace of high-resolution plausible subsurface models with augmentation from the α priori network model.

13 . The method of claim 11 , wherein solving the inversion problem based on multiple scenarios generates multiple solutions; and

wherein the machine-learning model evaluates the multiple solutions in order to rank the multiple scenarios.

14 . The method of claim 11 , wherein an augmented inversion method is combined with a nullspace search algorithm to find equally-likely or almost equally-likely solutions connected to the one or more solutions.

15 . The method of claim 11 , wherein the physics model associates geometric shapes of geobodies with geophysical or petrophysical properties; and

wherein the physical model associates shapes of channel systems and of lobe systems with their respective properties.

16 . A computer-implemented method of machine learning-augmented geophysical inversion comprising:

obtaining measured data for a subsurface region;

obtaining prior subsurface data;

performing a training step independent of the measured data for the subsurface region using direct probabilistic modeling of geologic priors of at least one aspect of rock types, facies, or fluid types to generate an augmented forward model based on machine-learning with the prior subsurface data conditional on scenarios of at least one of geologic systems, rock types, facies, or fluid types;

solving an inversion problem by:

(i) inputting the measured data and different rock distributions as different initial solutions using the augmented forward model, wherein different conditions of at least one of rock types, facies, or fluid types are used as inputs to the augmented forward model in order for the augmented forward model to generate the different rock distributions;

(ii) generating multiple scenario solutions based on the measured data and the different initial solutions;

(iii) determining whether to continue iterating;

(iv) responsive to determining to continue iterating, iterating back to (ii) to generate the multiple scenario solutions that are updated and based on the measured data and the different initial solutions;

responsive to determining not to continue iterating, testing at least one of the multiple scenario solutions; and

drilling a well or using the well to extract hydrocarbons using the at least one of the multiple scenario solutions.

17 . The method of claim 16 , wherein testing the at least one of the multiple scenario solutions comprises one of:

using the augmented forward model in order to evaluate the multiple scenario solutions; or

evaluating a loss function using the measured data for a subsurface region.

18 . The method of claim 16 , wherein the at least one of the multiple scenario solutions comprises a model; and

further comprising:

creating a map of categorical labels or probabilities of scenarios for each pixel or element in the model; and

creating, by the augmented forward model, examples that match the labels.

19 . The method of claim 16 , wherein uncertainty of the multiple scenario solutions at each spatial location is evaluated by optimization.

20 . The method of claim 16 , wherein uncertainty of the at least one of the multiple scenario solutions is evaluated by at least one of:

latent space projection and interpolation; or

extreme bounds analysis.

21 . A computer-implemented method of machine learning-augmented geophysical inversion comprising:

obtaining measured data for a subsurface region;

obtaining prior subsurface data;

forming an augmented forward model based on machine-learning with the prior subsurface data conditional on scenarios of at least one of geologic systems, rock types or facies and on a physics model mapping output of the augmented forward model to seismic data thereby interlinking a direct physical relationship of at least one of rock types, facies, or fluid types with seismic data;

using an augmented inversion method combined with a Hamiltonian null-space exploration problem to find multiple equally plausible solutions, wherein the augmented inversion method comprises:

(i) inputting the measured data and different rock distributions as different initial solutions

(ii) generating multiple scenario solutions based on the measured data and the different initial solutions, wherein the Hamiltonian null-space exploration problem using the multiple scenario solutions in order to find the multiple equally plausible solutions;

drilling a well or using the well to extract hydrocarbons using the at least one of the multiple equally plausible solutions.

22 . A computer-implemented method for simultaneously estimating wavelets and geophysical or petrophysical properties, the method comprising:

performing a training step independent of measured data for a subsurface region to generate an augmented forward model based on machine-learning with wavelet examples in order to determine representations in latent space;

accessing the measured data for a subsurface region;

solving an inversion problem by:

(i) estimating, based on different conditions input to the augmented forward model and without a well-log calibration, a plurality of initial wavelets;

(ii) estimating, based on the measured data, initial geophysical or petrophysical properties;

(iii) generating an inversion solution by simultaneously updating the plurality of initial wavelets and the initial geophysical or petrophysical properties;

(iv) determining whether to continue iterating;

V responsive to determining to continue iterating, iterating back to (iii); and

drilling a well or using the well to extract hydrocarbons using the inversion solution.

23 . The method of claim 22 , wherein the initial wavelets are estimated based on statistical wavelet estimations, elastic FWI results, or transferred from overlapping or nearby seismic surveys with well ties; and

wherein the initial wavelets comprise a distribution of wavelets as a prior to infer wavelets during the solving of the inversion problem.

24 . The method of claim 22 , wherein solving the inversion problem comprises inverting for wavelets by updates in the latent space of a wavelet network.

Continuity (2)
Provisional Application 63203218 · Jul 13, 2021
Related Publication 20230032044A1 · Feb 2, 2023
References Cited (34)
US 20170336529A1 · Denli · 2017 [cited by examiner]
US 20200183041A1 · Denli · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 20200183046A1 · Wheelock et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20200183047A1 · Denli et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
Fitchner, Andreas, and Andrew Zunino. “Halmiltonian nullspace shuttles.” Geophysical research letters 46.2 (2019): 644-651. (Year: 2019). [cited by examiner]
A. Veillard, O. Morere, M. Grout and J. Gruffeille, “Fast 3D Seismic Interpretation with Unsupervised Deep Learning: Application to a Potash Network in the North Sea”, EAGE, (2018). [cited by applicant]
Adelson, Edward H., et al. “Pyramid methods in image processing.” RCA engineer 29.6 (1984): 33-41. [cited by applicant]
Bosch, M., Mukerji, T., & Gonzalez, E. F., “Seismic inversion for reservoir properties combining statistical rock physics and geostatistics: A review”, Geophysics, 75(5), 75A165-75A176 (2010). [cited by applicant]
Cooke, D. A., & Schneider, W. A., “Generalized linear inversion of reflection seismic data”, Geophysics, 48(6), 665-676 (1983). [cited by applicant]
Delprat-Jannaud F. and Lailly P., “A fundamental limitation for the reconstruction of impedance profiles from seismic data”, Geophysics 70(1), R1-R14 (2005). [cited by applicant]
Fichtner, Andreas, and Andrea Zunino. “Hamiltonian nullspace shuttles.” Geophysical research letters 46.2 (2019): 644-651. [cited by applicant]
Gunning, J., Kemper, M., Saussus, D., Pelham, A., & Fitzgerald, E., “A tour of optimisation methods for facies estimation in AVO seismic inversion using Markov random fields”, In Proc., 75th EAGE Conference and Exhibiti… [cited by applicant]
Helgesen, J., & Landrø, M., “Estimation of Elastic Parameters From AVO Effects In The Tau-P Domain1”, Geophysical Prospecting, 41(3), 341-366 (1993). [cited by applicant]
I. J. Goodfellow, J. Pouget-Abadie, M. Mirza, B. Xu, D. Warde-Farley, S. Ozair, A. C. Courville, and Y. Bengio. Generative adversarial nets. In Proceedings of NIPS, pp. 2672-2680 (2014). [cited by applicant]
J. Brac, et al., “Inversion with a priori information: an approach to integrated stratigraphic interpretation, Reservoir Geophysics”, ed. Sheriff, p. 251-258 (1992). [cited by applicant]
J. Mun, W. D. Jang, D. J. Sung and C. S. Kim, “Comparison of objective functions in CNN-based prostate magnetic resonance image segmentation,” 2017 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), Beijing, 2017… [cited by applicant]
Jiang, Y., Wulff, B., “Detecting prospective structures in volumetric geo-seismic data using deep convolutional neural networks.”, Poster presented on Nov. 15, 2016 at the annual foundation council meeting of the Bonn-A… [cited by applicant]
Jonathan Long, Evan Shelhamer, and Trevor Darrell, “Fully Convolutional Networks for Semantic Segmentation,” CVPR (2015). [cited by applicant]
K.H. Zou, S.K. Warfield, A. Bharatha, C.M.C. Tempany, M.R. Kaus, S.J. Haker, W.M. Wells III, F.A. Jolesz, R. Kikinis “Statistical validation of image segmentation quality based on a spatial overlap index” Acad. Radiol.,… [cited by applicant]
Landrø, M., Buland, A., & d'Angelo, R., “Target-oriented AVO inversion of data from Valhall and Hod fields”, The Leading Edge, 14(8), 855-861 (1995). [cited by applicant]
LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G., “Deep Learning.”, Nature 521, 436-444, (2015). [cited by applicant]
Lörtzer, G. J. M., & Berkhout, A. J., “An integrated approach to lithologic inversion—Part I: Theory”, Geophysics, 57(2), 233-244 (1992). [cited by applicant]
Marc G Bellemare, Ivo Danihelka, Will Dabney, Shakir Mohamed, Balaji Lakshminarayanan, Stephan Hoyer, and Rémi Munos, “The Cramer Distance as a Solution to biased Wasserstein Gradients”, arXiv:1705.10743 (2017). [cited by applicant]
Martinez, et al., “Complex Reservoir Characterization by Multiparameter Constrained inversion, Reservoir Geophysics”, ed. By Sheriff, 224-234 (1992). [cited by applicant]
Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, Thomas Brox, “U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation”, Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention (MICCAI), Springer, LNCS, vol. 9351: 234-241 … [cited by applicant]
Pan, G. S., Young, C. Y., & Castagna, J. P., “An integrated target-oriented prestack elastic waveform inversion: Sensitivity, calibration, and application”, Geophysics, 59(9), 1392-1404 (1994). [cited by applicant]
Pratt R.G., “Seismic waveform inversion in the frequency domain, Part I”, Geophysics 64, 888-901 (1999). [cited by applicant]
Rickett J., “The variable projection method for waveform inversion with an unknown source function, Geophysical Prospecting”, 61, 874-881 (2013). [cited by applicant]
Rimstad, K., Avseth, P., & Omre, H., “Hierarchical Bayesian lithology/fluid prediction: A North Sea case study”, Geophysics, 77(2), B69-B85 (2012). [cited by applicant]
Shipp R. and Singh S., “Two-dimensional full wavefield inversion of wide aperture marine seismic streamer data”, Geophysical Journal International 151(2), 325-344 (2002). [cited by applicant]
Simmons Jr, J. L., & Backus, M. M., “Waveform-based AVO inversion and AVO prediction-error”, Geophysics, 61(6), 1575-1588 (1996). [cited by applicant]
Simonyan, K., & Zisserman, A., “Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognition.”, arXiv technical report (2014). [cited by applicant]
Wang K., Krebs J.R., Hinkley D. and Baumstein A., “Simultaneous full-waveform inversion for source wavelet and earth model. 79th Annual International Meeting”, SEG, Expanded Abstracts 28, 2537-2541 (2009). [cited by applicant]
Zhang, C., Frogner, C., & Poggio, T., “Automated Geophysical Feature Detection with Deep Learning.” GPU Technology Conference (2016). [cited by applicant]