Back to Oil & Gas Hub
Midstream

Pipeline integrity & safety

One of many midstream use cases. This example focuses on ILI data analysis and dig program optimization, the core of pipeline integrity management where Lumina was first proven.

The "last mile" problem in integrity

You have terabytes of in-line inspection data, and your senior engineers already know how to read it. Today a single decision often waits on a data engineer to write the SQL query, and that handoff adds both delay and risk.

CEPA and PHMSA expect traceable, verifiable records behind each integrity decision, so the manual path through spreadsheets, interaction rules, burst-pressure math, and dig programs takes real time to complete. The encouraging part is that the judgment already lives inside your team, and the opportunity is to give that judgment the reach to cover the whole system at the speed the data now arrives.

2M+
Sensor rows per typical ILI run
2 weeks
Average time from ILI data receipt to dig program
27%
Maintenance cost reduction with condition-based approaches (McKinsey)

Why current tools fall short

Traditional approaches were not built for the scale and complexity of modern operations.

01

Manual ILI analysis

Engineers manually sift through millions of rows, applying interaction rules and calculating burst pressures in spreadsheets, so a single run takes weeks.

02

Static corrosion growth models

Growth rates are calculated linearly between runs. They don't account for coating condition, CP readings, or soil chemistry.

03

Compliance documentation gap

CER/PHMSA require auditable decision trails, yet most integrity decisions are documented in emails and meeting notes.

04

Dig program guesswork

Without cost-benefit analysis across all anomalies, dig programs over-excavate low-risk features and miss high-risk interactions.

The Lumina Approach

How Lumina solves it

Three layers of intelligence working together: reasoning agents, proactive detection, and multi-agent deliberation.

Layer 1

ILI analysis intelligence

Lumina agents ingest ILI data, apply CEPA/ASME interaction rules, calculate burst pressures (B31G, Modified B31G, RSTRENG), and classify defects, all as verifiable SQL.

Every calculation is SQL you can verify. No black box.

Agent Reasoning
SQL-Backed
Agent Reasoning:

Analyzing Run_2024_Segment_4.csv (2,405,100 sensor rows)... Validated against ASME B31G Applied CEPA Interaction Rules Critical Finding: Cluster Interaction at MP 102.4 Two defects (Depth 35% & 42%) within 15mm axially → Effective Failure Pressure: 850 PSI (Below MOP) → Immediate dig required

All outputs backed by verifiable SQL you can inspect
The Radar
Scanning
Anomaly Detected:

ALERT: Corrosion growth rate acceleration detected at MP 98-105 3 consecutive runs show exponential growth pattern (R²=0.94) Correlation: CP readings in this segment show 15% potential drop over 18 months Soil resistivity: 800 Ω·cm (highly corrosive) → Recommend: Prioritize CP rectifier assessment + coating condition survey

Proactive hypothesis testing, like anomaly clustering
Layer 2

Integrity anomaly detection

The Radar scans across ILI runs, CP surveys, and coating assessments to detect patterns: corrosion clustering, growth rate acceleration, and coating-soil interactions that indicate emerging risk.

The Radar surfaces issues the operator didn't know to look for. Before they become incidents.

Layer 3

Integrity decision deliberation

Integrity, operations, and compliance agents deliberate on dig program priorities. Each weighs safety, cost, and regulatory requirements from their domain perspective.

The output is grounded in facts (SQL results), not hallucination. Every recommendation carries a full audit trail.

The Boardroom
Deliberation
Multi-Agent Debate:

Integrity Agent: 47 features require assessment. 12 are critical (below 1.25 safety factor). Operations Agent: Segment 4 has a 30-day outage window in Q3. Segment 7 is continuous-flow. Compliance Agent: CER Condition 6 requires all critical features addressed within 180 days. → Consensus: Bundle Segment 4 critical digs (8 features) into Q3 outage. Segment 7 features (4) require hot-tap or clamp repairs.

Agents vote, challenge, and produce a synthesized recommendation

The result: intelligence that scales

Lumina addresses the four strategic problems that hold operators back.

Scale without headcount

Analyze entire ILI runs in minutes, not weeks. One engineer can manage the integrity program for an entire pipeline system.

Reduce reactive costs

Optimize dig programs with cost-benefit analysis, reducing unnecessary excavations by 30-50% while improving safety outcomes.

Knowledge retention

Interaction rules, corrosion models, and integrity playbooks are encoded in the system, not in the Senior Engineer's retirement plan.

Auditable trust

Every burst pressure calculation, interaction rule application, and defect classification is backed by SQL you can verify and audit for CER/PHMSA.

Agents for this use case

Specialized AI agents that power this workflow.

Lumi Field

Integrity Engineer

Specializes in ILI analysis, corrosion growth rates, burst pressure calculations, interaction rules, and dig program optimization grounded in CEPA/ASME standards.

Lumi Grid

Energy Optimizer

Monitors pump station energy against grid pricing. Optimizes compressor scheduling for cost and carbon intensity.

Lumi Core

Data Scientist

Handles ILI data ingestion, vendor format normalization, fuzzy matching across runs, and unit conversion.

This is just one of many use cases

Explore what Lumina can do for your operation

Pipeline integrity & safety is one example of how Lumina reasons on operational data. Across Oil & Gas, every domain has use cases where AI agents can add value.

Not ready to commit? Stay up to date as we release new capabilities and industry-specific agents.

View all Oil & Gas use cases