1887

Abstract

Summary

The study introduces a unified multi-modal transformer–GAN framework for high-resolution reservoir property modeling by integrating seismic, well-log, and core data. Unlike conventional geostatistical methods that treat individual data sources independently, the approach fuses multiple modalities through cross-modal attention to capture geological context and multi-scale spatial dependencies. The workflow comprises seismic feature extraction using a 3D convolutional autoencoder, well-log processing via temporal convolution and self-attention, and uncertainty-aware core embedding through Gaussian-process priors. These are fused into a context vector guiding conditional generation of porosity and permeability cubes. Physical consistency is ensured through facies-preserving, realism, and physics-based regularization losses.

Tested on a North Sea carbonate field, the method achieved porosity MAE of 0.087 and permeability correlation of 0.82, outperforming seismic-only, log-only, and co-kriging baselines. The model reproduced thin-bedded structures (1–3 m thick) with 89% vertical accuracy and 94% porosity–facies alignment, while cutting inference time to less than one second per model compared to hours for kriging. Attention-weight analysis showed modality dominance varying with geological conditions—seismic in sand-rich zones, logs in complex structures, and cores in thin beds. The study establishes transformer-driven multi-modal fusion as a scalable, interpretable, and geologically consistent paradigm for reservoir characterization.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202639102
2026-03-09
2026-02-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Mosser, L., Dubrule, O., & Blunt, M. J. (2018). Stochastic reconstruction of an oolitic limestone by generative adversarial networks. Water Resources Research, 54(10), 7625–7640.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Chan, S., Elsheikh, A. H., & Garipov, T. T. (2020). Parametric generation of geological realizations using generative adversarial networks. Computational Geosciences, 24(3), 939–955.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Song, Y., & Ermon, S. (2020). Generative modeling by estimating gradients of the data distribution. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 33.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Zhang, Y., & Curtis, A. (2021). Physics‐informed deep generative models for geophysical inversion. Geophysical Journal International, 226(1), 522–540.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202639102
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202639102
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error