This invention relates generally to the field of geophysical prospecting and, more particularly, to processing of geophysical data. Specifically, the invention is a method for performing joint inversion of two or more different geophysical data types.
This invention pertains to joint inversion of remote geophysical data to infer geological properties of the subsurface. Remote geophysical data are likely to include active seismic reflection data; electromagnetic data (either controlled source (“CSEM”) or magneto-telluric (“MT”); and/or gravity measurements; however, any type of data that can be used to remotely infer the properties of subsurface rocks in the region of interest may be included. When multiple data types (e.g. reflection seismic and electromagnetic data) are inverted simultaneously, it is known as a joint inversion. During inversion the aim is to minimize the difference between the measured data and the data predicted by the inversion model. By combining multiple different types of geophysical data in a joint inversion, one often aims to invert for a model with multiple different types of model parameters (e.g. porosity and fluid type) rather than just a single parameter (e.g. p-wave impedance).
Due to the large number of model parameters and the often large computational cost of the forward calculation (“synthesizing” the data from a test model), one is often limited to linearized, local optimization techniques for inversion. These involve starting at an initial model and updating it by moving along a path in model-parameter space that decreases the misfit between measured data and synthesized data (known as the objective function). Geophysical inversion in general, and joint inversion in particular, often has a highly non-linear objective function which can result in poor convergence properties due to the solution becoming stuck in a local minimum of the objective function.
Lack of convergence due to strong non-linearity of the inversion problem often arises in geophysical inversion due to the nature of the seismic reflection data—specifically, the relative lack of low-frequency content in the data. This problem can be mitigated to some degree by first inverting a low-pass filtered version of the data to find a long-spatial-wavelength model. Using this model as a starting model for subsequent inversions of higher-frequency data can serve to stabilize the inversion process. The technique of first inverting low-frequency portion of the seismic reflection data can be combined with inverting only the earliest portions of the recorded data first, i.e. the earliest arrivals at the detectors. By limiting the time window during the inversion, the more complicated deeper reflections, which are overprinted by multiples, can be excluded to obtain a good shallow model.
Bunks et al. describe a multiscale approach to full waveform seismic inversion. (Bunks, C., Saleck, F. M., Zaleski, S., and Chavent, G., “Multiscale seismic waveform inversion,” Geophysics 50, 5, pp 1457-1473 (1995)) They propose to low-pass filter the seismic data and increase the model grid size in order to avoid many of the local minima normally encountered when inverting full waveform reflection seismic data. At each step, they add more frequencies to the data and reduce the grid size to realize the full resolution available in the data set. This method, however, does not describe how to stabilize a joint inversion of multiple data and parameter types.
Hu et al (2009) perform a joint inversion of electromagnetic and seismic data. (Hu, W., Abubakar, A., and Habashy, T. M., “Joint electromagnetic and seismic inversion using structural constraints,” Geophysics 74, 6, pp R99-R109 (2009)) In order to prevent high-frequency data from dominating the inversion and thus becoming trapped in local minima, they apply a weight to the data such that lower frequency portions of the data are emphasized. The data weighting does not change during the course of the inversion. This technique does not allow one to increase the influence of higher frequency data or to alter which parameters the inversion is solving for as the solution approaches the global minimum.
In one of its aspects, the invention, with reference to the flowchart of
In one embodiment, the invention is a method for estimating a physical properties model in a subsurface region using data comprising two or more geophysical data types, said model comprising numbers in a model parameter domain representing one or more physical properties, said method comprising jointly inverting (using a computer) the data in a plurality of sequential phases, wherein in each phase until a last phase, only a portion of the data is inverted in order to infer a subset of the model's parameter domain.
The present invention and its advantages will be better understood by referring to the following detailed description and the attached drawings in which:
The invention will be described in connection with example embodiments. However, to the extent that the following detailed description is specific to a particular embodiment or a particular use of the invention, this is intended to be illustrative only, and is not to be construed as limiting the scope of the invention. On the contrary, it is intended to cover all alternatives, modifications and equivalents that may be included within the scope of the invention, as defined by the appended claims. Persons skilled in the technical field will readily recognize that in practical applications of the present inventive method, it must be performed on a computer, typically a suitably programmed digital computer.
The present inventive method applies specifically to joint inversion. In joint inversion, the different data types often encode information about the subsurface at different wavelengths as illustrated in
The invention allows for robust joint inversion of geophysical data via knowledge of the frequency content of the different types of data, and the corresponding wavelengths of the different model parameters. The invention allows for a more robust inversion process by approaching the true model at longer wavelengths first before solving for model parameters expected to vary at short wavelengths.
This is accomplished by “freezing” various data and model domains of the inversion problem. In this document, freezing is defined as fixing, damping, down-weighting, or removing particular parts of the objective function pertaining to data or model parameters that might contribute to poor convergence properties during an inversion. As the solution to the inversion problem evolves towards the global minimum of the objective function, the frozen domains are gradually unfrozen; that is, they contribute more strongly to the inversion process.
By first inverting for the longer wavelength portions of the model domain, the inversion becomes more robust and less likely to become stuck in a local minimum. Once a long wavelength estimate of the model has been determined, it is effectively used as a starting model for a subsequent phase of the inversion. This next phase of the inversion (or set of iterations) solves for finer wavelength parameters in the model. The processes can continue, adding higher frequencies and solving for smaller wavelength features until the highest frequency data available has contributed to the inversion solution. At each phase, the previous solution is used as a new starting model. This is the un-freezing process.
The primary freezing domain is the model parameter domain. In many practical applications, the inversion model domain contains more than one physical parameter. For example, a geophysical joint inversion may invert for both conductivity and seismic velocity, or perhaps porosity and water saturation. If one or more of the model parameters are believed to vary on a length scale smaller than the other parameters (i.e., they vary rapidly), one can use that fact to avoid local minima by freezing the rapidly varying parameters for early stages of the inversion process.
Four other example domains are presented here as candidates to be frozen to improve joint inversion convergence. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, and further, domains may be used alone or in combination. The particular problem of interest will determine the domain(s) used, as well as the order of domain freezing in the inversion.
Data Frequency Domain: In a joint inversion each data set is likely to have a different frequency content. For example, electromagnetic data, such as controlled source electromagnetic (CSEM) or magnetotelluric (MT) data has a lower frequency content than seismic reflection data. The high frequency nature of the seismic reflection data (and specifically the lack of intermediate and low frequencies) often cause the inversion to suffer from local minima problems. By low-pass filtering the higher frequency data sets so that all data contribute to model resolution at similar wavelengths, we can avoid local minima of the inversion objective function. After solving for a long wavelength model, we can gradually thaw (add back in) higher frequency portions of the filtered data sets.
Data Time Domain: Multiples and converted waves in the inversion of seismic reflection data make the problem very nonlinear. To avoid these late-arriving phases in the initial steps of the inversion, one can limit the time window to the early portion of the seismograms. This restricts the inversion to the shallow part of the model and it is better behaved due to the lack of multiples and reduced parameter space. Having a more accurate solution for the shallow part of the model will aide the inversion of the deeper portions of the model, which correspond to times in the data that include multiples and converted waves from the shallow part of the model.
Wave Number Domain: Local minima in the geophysical joint inversion processes are directly related to short-wavelength features of the model being mislocated in the physical model space. Because of this, the freezing of short-wavelength features in the model domain can improve inversion stability. This can be achieved by increasing the grid size of the physical model, i.e. completely disallowing small-wavelength features in the inversion model during early steps. This can also be achieved by using a spatial smoothing constraint on the inversion that penalizes small-wavelength fluctuations in the model.
Spatial Domain: Spatial masks can be applied to the model domain. For example, one could freeze deeper portions of the model during early stages of the inversion. After finding a solution for the shallow portion of the model, the deeper portions are then solved. Alternatively, regions of the model that vary rapidly (for example, near faults or major lithologic boundaries) may be frozen until large-scale structure is obtained.
In general, the invention may be applied successfully in any generic inversion workflow, as illustrated in the flowchart of
In the phase labeled (a) in
In phase (b), only the low frequency information of seismic data 301, as obtained by low pass filtering or any other mathematical transformation that eliminates high frequencies, is inverted together with naturally low frequency data 302, such as CSEM, MT or gravity (frequency domain freezing). Because only low frequencies are used, the inversion is performed on a coarse grid 303 (wavenumber domain freezing). Furthermore, any of several other types of domain freezing 304 can be used in phase (b). Simplified rock physics relationships—possibly implemented by fixing or strongly damping one or more inversion partameters—can be used in this phase (model parameter domain freezing). For example, if water saturation were an inversion parameter, one could fix the water saturation in this phase because large scale fluctuations of water saturation are not expected. Further reduction of free model parameters that are inverted for can be achieved by fixing or strongly damping portions of the model space (spatial domain freezing), or the data time domain by applying a taper to the seismic data.
Phase (b) can consist of multiple sub-phases, for example starting by inverting only the early arrivals and in the following phases include information arriving later in time. (In the claims appended hereto, the prefix “sub” is omitted and each one of multiple sub-phases is referred to as a “phase.” Each “phase” is defined by completion of a joint inversion process, which means in the case of iterative inversion, satisfying a convergence criterion.) The final result of phase (b) is a coarsely sampled model space containing information only at low wavenumbers.
In phase (c), the frequency content of the seismic data is increased 305 and the grid size decreased 306 over several stages 307 until frequency content is used together with the desired grid in the final stage 310. The model obtained in each previous sub-phase is used as initial model 308. Furthermore the model may also be used to add an additional damping constraint for regularization. The low frequency data are still inverted jointly with the seismic data, but their contribution to the objective function is decreased 309 as the grid size decreases (data frequency domain freezing). This weighting scheme enables the low frequency data to inherit the resolution of the high frequency data while stabilizing the inversion. The damping at each sub-phase 308 can be increased to ensure that only information at smaller scale length is changed. Furthermore, the complexity of the link between the data types is increased. For example by increasing the number of rock physics parameters to invert for or by decreasing the damping of portions of the rock physics domain. Again, spatial masks, which can change as a function of iteration, can be applied 311 to the model space to reduce the model parameters that are inverted for in each sub-phase.
The workflow is stopped at phase (d) once no more information can be added and the highest resolution is achieved. Reservoir properties 312 (porosity, lithology, fluid type) are the result of the inversion. Other products may be Vp, Vs, density and resistivity, all of which inherited the high spatial resolution of the seismic data.
For hydrocarbon detection, an additional phase can be added at the end. In this phase all parameters except the water saturation are fixed. A very strong damping may be used to the model resulting at 312, and the weights of the data containing information about resistivity (CSEM, MT) and thus water saturation are increased strongly compared to the seismic data. This utilizes the information about water saturation contained in these data types and only allows changes to the model if required by these data. The strong damping prevents a potential loss of resolution due to the large weight of the low frequency data (like CSEM and MT).
For hydrocarbon exploration, a re-gridding of the water saturation can be performed. All layers identified as sand are gridded into one layer. Alternatively a constraint can be added allowing each sand layer to have only one value for the water saturation (thus the same for each layer inside the sand).
In the first phase (a), as stated at 401, the seismic data are low-pass filtered with a corner frequency of 10 Hz and the inversion is performed on a coarse grid. The low frequency data are added using a large weight and the water saturation is fixed as indicated by the arrow 501.
In the next phase (b), as stated at 402, more frequencies are added to the seismic data and the inversion is performed on finer grids. The solution from phase (a) is used as a starting model (interpolated on the finer grid) and a damping term is added in the objective function (502). Because the reflections from the shallow, fast, and reflective body dominate the misfit, that portion of the model (503) is kept fixed in subsequent phases. In a first sub-phase the water saturation is fixed, in the second it is allowed to change via the inversion process.
In phase (c), as stated at 403, the inversion is performed using the full resolution of the seismic data and the model from phase (b) as starting model and model to damp against (504). The portion of the model corresponding to the fast and resistive layer (505) is kept fixed and the weight of the low frequency data is decreased.
The progressive convergence of the inverted parameters (gray lines) to the “true” parameters (dark black lines) through the three phases (a) to (c) are shown as the 1D models are viewed from top to bottom.
The foregoing patent application is directed to particular embodiments of the present invention for the purpose of illustrating it. It will be apparent, however, to one skilled in the art, that many modifications and variations to the embodiments described herein are possible. All such modifications and variations are intended to be within the scope of the present invention, as defined in the appended claims.
This application is the National Stage of International Application No. PCT/US2011/037106, that published as WO 2012/173718, filed May 9, 2012, which claims the benefit of U. S. Provisional Application No. 61/498,352, filed Jun. 17, 2011, entitled DOMAIN FREEZING IN JOINT INVERSION, the entirety of which is incorporated by reference herein.
Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind | 371c Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
PCT/US2012/037106 | 5/9/2012 | WO | 00 | 10/21/2013 |
Publishing Document | Publishing Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
WO2012/173718 | 12/20/2012 | WO | A |
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4742305 | Stolarczyk | May 1988 | A |
4792761 | King et al. | Dec 1988 | A |
4831383 | Ohnishi et al. | May 1989 | A |
4875015 | Ward | Oct 1989 | A |
5050129 | Schultz | Sep 1991 | A |
5175500 | McNeill | Dec 1992 | A |
5189644 | Wood | Feb 1993 | A |
5210691 | Freedman et al. | May 1993 | A |
5265192 | McCormack | Nov 1993 | A |
5357893 | Ruffa | Oct 1994 | A |
5373443 | Lee et al. | Dec 1994 | A |
5406206 | Safinya et al. | Apr 1995 | A |
5467018 | Ruter et al. | Nov 1995 | A |
5563513 | Tasci et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
5594343 | Clark et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
5706194 | Neff et al. | Jan 1998 | A |
5764515 | Guerillot et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5770945 | Constable | Jun 1998 | A |
5825188 | Montgomery et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5835883 | Neff et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5836634 | Finkelman | Nov 1998 | A |
5841733 | Bouyoucos et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5884227 | Rabinovich et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5905657 | Celniker | May 1999 | A |
6037776 | McGlone | Mar 2000 | A |
6049760 | Scott | Apr 2000 | A |
6088656 | Ramakrishnan et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6094400 | Ikelle | Jul 2000 | A |
6101448 | Ikelle et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6115670 | Druskin et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6138075 | Yost | Oct 2000 | A |
6181138 | Hagiwara et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6253100 | Zhdanov | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6253627 | Lee et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6256587 | Jericevic et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6278948 | Jorgensen et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6304086 | Minerbo et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6311132 | Rosenquist et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6332109 | Sheard et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6339333 | Kuo | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6393363 | Wilt et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6424918 | Jorgensen et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6430507 | Jorgensen et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6466021 | MacEnany | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6470274 | Mollison et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6476609 | Bittar | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6493632 | Mollison et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6502037 | Jorgensen et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6529833 | Fanini et al. | Mar 2003 | B2 |
6533627 | Ambs | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6534986 | Nichols | Mar 2003 | B2 |
6593746 | Stolarczyk | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6594584 | Omeragic et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6671623 | Li | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6675097 | Routh et al. | Jan 2004 | B2 |
6686736 | Schoen et al. | Feb 2004 | B2 |
6711502 | Mollison et al. | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6724192 | McGlone | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6739165 | Strack | May 2004 | B1 |
6765383 | Barringer | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6813566 | Hartley | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6816787 | Ramamoorthy et al. | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6842006 | Conti et al. | Jan 2005 | B2 |
6842400 | Blanch et al. | Jan 2005 | B2 |
6846133 | Naes et al. | Jan 2005 | B2 |
6876725 | Rashid-Farrokhi et al. | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6883452 | Gieseke | Apr 2005 | B1 |
6888623 | Clements | May 2005 | B2 |
6901029 | Raillon et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
6901333 | Van Riel et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
6914433 | Wright et al. | Jul 2005 | B2 |
6950747 | Byerly | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6957708 | Chemali et al. | Oct 2005 | B2 |
6958610 | Gianzero | Oct 2005 | B2 |
6985403 | Nicholson | Jan 2006 | B2 |
6993433 | Chavarria et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
6999880 | Lee | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7002349 | Barringer | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7002350 | Barringer | Feb 2006 | B1 |
7023213 | Nichols | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7039525 | Mittet | May 2006 | B2 |
7062072 | Anxionnaz et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7092315 | Olivier | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7109717 | Constable | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7113869 | Xue | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7114565 | Estes et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7116108 | Constable | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7126338 | MacGregor et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7142986 | Moran | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7187569 | Sinha et al. | Mar 2007 | B2 |
7191063 | Tompkins | Mar 2007 | B2 |
7203599 | Strack et al. | Apr 2007 | B1 |
7227363 | Gianzero et al. | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7236886 | Frenkel | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7250768 | Ritter et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7257049 | Laws et al. | Aug 2007 | B1 |
7262399 | Hayashi et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7262602 | Meyer | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7289910 | Voutay et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7307424 | MacGregor et al. | Dec 2007 | B2 |
7337064 | MacGregor et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7347271 | Ohmer et al. | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7356412 | Tompkins | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7362102 | Andreis | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7382135 | Li et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7400977 | Alumbaugh et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
7411399 | Reddig et al. | Aug 2008 | B2 |
7453763 | Johnstad | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7456632 | Johnstad et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7477160 | Lemenager et al. | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7482813 | Constable et al. | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7502690 | Thomsen et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7536262 | Hornbostel et al. | May 2009 | B2 |
7542851 | Tompkins | Jun 2009 | B2 |
7565245 | Andreis et al. | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7659721 | MacGregor et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7660188 | Meldahl | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7683625 | Milne et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7822552 | Bittleston | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7884612 | Conti et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
7928732 | Nichols | Apr 2011 | B2 |
8008920 | Lu et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8099239 | MacGregor et al. | Jan 2012 | B2 |
8577660 | Wendt et al. | Nov 2013 | B2 |
8923094 | Jing et al. | Dec 2014 | B2 |
20020172329 | Rashid-Farrokhi et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20050128874 | Herkenhoff et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050237063 | Wright et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20060186887 | Strack et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20070280047 | MacGregor et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20070288211 | MacGregor et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080007265 | Milne et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080008920 | Alexandrovichserov et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080015782 | Saltzer et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080059075 | Colombo et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080105425 | MacGregor et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080106265 | Campbell | May 2008 | A1 |
20090005997 | Willen | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090070042 | Birchwood et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090083006 | Mackie | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090187391 | Wendt et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090198476 | Kim et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090204330 | Thomsen et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090243613 | Lu et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090306900 | Jing et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090309599 | Ziolkowski | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100179761 | Burtz et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100307741 | Mosse et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110090760 | Rickett et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2 402 745 | Aug 2005 | GB |
2 410 635 | Dec 2006 | GB |
WO 9807050 | Feb 1998 | WO |
WO 2004109338 | Dec 2004 | WO |
WO 2006052145 | May 2006 | WO |
WO 2006073315 | Jul 2006 | WO |
WO 2008054880 | May 2008 | WO |
WO 2008062024 | May 2008 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Bunks, C., et al. (1995), “Multiscale seismic waveform inversion,” Geophysics 50(5), pp. 1457-1473. |
Hu, W. et al. (2009), “Joint electromagnetic and seismic inversion using structural constraints,” Geophysics 74(6), pp. R99-R109. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20140095131 A1 | Apr 2014 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61498352 | Jun 2011 | US |