PDF
(1937KB)
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping the operation and management of energy pipelines that transport oil, natural gas, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide. This review provides a critical synthesis of current developments, highlighting how AI is being applied across pipeline life cycle stages—from route design and construction quality assurance to operation, maintenance, and eventual decommissioning. Recent advances in deep learning, transformer architectures, graph neural networks, and physics-informed models demonstrate the ability to detect anomalies, optimize multiphase flows, and support predictive maintenance with greater adaptability and robustness than conventional methods. Case studies illustrate how industrial operators are deploying AI platforms to improve efficiency, reduce environmental impact, and enhance system resilience. Alongside these opportunities, the review identifies systemic risks, including data bias, algorithmic opacity, cybersecurity vulnerabilities, and overreliance on automation, and discusses emerging mitigation strategies such as synthetic data generation, explainable AI, defense-in-depth frameworks, and mixed-initiative human–machine collaboration. Looking ahead, the field is moving toward multi-source heterogeneous data fusion, few-shot and transfer learning for data-scarce environments, and causal inference for decision support. AI applications in hydrogen and CO2 pipelines, though nascent, offer promising directions for building safer and more sustainable infrastructures. This review underscores the need for continued interdisciplinary efforts to balance innovation with reliability, ensuring that AI becomes a trusted enabler of next-generation pipeline systems in the global energy transition.
Keywords
Artificial intelligence
/
Pipelines
/
Fossil fuels
/
Hydrogen
/
Carbon dioxide
/
Opportunities
/
Risks
Cite this article
Download citation ▾
Hongfang Lu, Y. Frank Cheng.
Artificial Intelligence in Energy Pipelines: Opportunities and Risks.
Engineering DOI:10.1016/j.eng.2025.08.032
| [1] |
Mi Mšík, Nosko A.The Eastring gas pipeline in the context of the Central and Eastern European gas supply challenge.Nat Energy 2017; 2(11):844-848.
|
| [2] |
Cheng F.Monitor safety of aged fuel pipelines.Nature 2016; 529(7585):156.
|
| [3] |
Kountouris I, Bramstoft R, Madsen T, Gea-Berm Júdez, Münster M, Keles D.A unified European hydrogen infrastructure planning to support the rapid scale-up of hydrogen production.Nat Commun 2024; 15(1):5517.
|
| [4] |
Lu H, Ma X, Huang K, Fu L, Azimi M.Carbon dioxide transport via pipelines: a systematic review.J Clean Prod 2020; 266:121994.
|
| [5] |
United States Department of Transportation. Annual report mileage for hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide systems. Report. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation; 2024.
|
| [6] |
Global gas infrastructure tracker. Report. Covina: Global Energy Monitor; 2023.
|
| [7] |
Global oil infrastructure tracker. Report. Covina: Global Energy Monitor; 2024.
|
| [8] |
Hydrogen production and infrastructure projects database. Report. Paris: International Energy Agency; 2024.
|
| [9] |
Lu H, Guo L, Azimi M, Huang K.Oil and gas 4.0 era: a systematic review and outlook.Comput Ind 2019; 111:68-90.
|
| [10] |
Wang H, Fu T, Du Y, Gao W, Huang K, Liu Z, et al.Scientific discovery in the age of artificial intelligence.Nature 2023; 620(7972):47-60.
|
| [11] |
Bhowmik S.Machine learning-based optimization for subsea pipeline route design. In: Proceedings of Offshore Technology Conference; 2021 Aug 16–19; Virtual and Houston, TX; USA. Richardson: OnePetro; 2021.
|
| [12] |
AI is the next stage of intelligentisation for the oil and gas industry. Report. Houston: The Petroleum Economist Ltd; 2023.
|
| [13] |
Priyanka EB, Thangavel S, Gao XZ, Sivakumar NS.Digital twin for oil pipeline risk estimation using prognostic and machine learning techniques.J Ind Inf Integr 2022; 26:100272.
|
| [14] |
Vuttipittayamongkol P, Tung A, Elyan E.A data-driven decision support tool for offshore oil and gas decommissioning.IEEE Access 2021; 9:137063-137082.
|
| [15] |
Zhang T, Bai H, Sun S.Intelligent natural gas and hydrogen pipeline dispatching using the coupled thermodynamics-informed neural network and compressor Boolean neural network.Processes 2022; 10(2):428.
|
| [16] |
Xu T, Zeng Z, Huang X, Li J, Feng H.Pipeline leak detection based on variational mode decomposition and support vector machine using an interior spherical detector.Process Saf Environ Prot 2021; 153:167-177.
|
| [17] |
Mandal SK, Chan FT, Tiwari MK.Leak detection of pipeline: an integrated approach of rough set theory and artificial bee colony trained SVM.Expert Syst Appl 2012; 39(3):3071-3080.
|
| [18] |
Zheng J, Wang C, Liang Y, Liao Q, Li Z, Wang B.Deeppipe: a deep-learning method for anomaly detection of multi-product pipelines.Energy 2022; 259:125025.
|
| [19] |
Li P, Wang X, Jiang C, Bi H, Liu Y, Yan W, et al.Advanced transformer model for simultaneous leakage aperture recognition and localization in gas pipelines.Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2024; 241:109685.
|
| [20] |
Zhang X, Shi J, Huang X, Xiao F, Yang M, Huang J, et al.Towards deep probabilistic graph neural network for natural gas leak detection and localization without labeled anomaly data.Expert Syst Appl 2023; 231:120542.
|
| [21] |
Liu C, Wang Y, Li X, Li Y, Khan F, Cai B.Quantitative assessment of leakage orifices within gas pipelines using a Bayesian network.Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2021; 209:107438.
|
| [22] |
Lian Y, Geng Y, Tian T.Anomaly detection method for multivariate time series data of oil and gas stations based on digital twin and MTAD-GAN.Appl Sci 2023; 13(3):1891.
|
| [23] |
Layouni M, Hamdi MS, Tahar S.Detection and sizing of metal-loss defects in oil and gas pipelines using pattern-adapted wavelets and machine learning.Appl Soft Comput 2017; 52:247-261.
|
| [24] |
Liu S, Wang H, Li R.Attention module magnetic flux leakage linked deep residual network for pipeline in-line inspection.Sensors 2022; 22(6):2230.
|
| [25] |
Xu L, Dong S, Wei H, Peng D, Qian W, Ren Q, et al.Intelligent identification of girth welds defects in pipelines using neural networks with attention modules.Eng Appl Artif Intel 2024; 127:107295.
|
| [26] |
Zhang M, Guo YB, Zhang Z, He RB, Wang DG, Chen JZ, et al.Extraction of pipeline defect feature based on variational mode and optimal singular value decomposition.Petrol Sci 2023; 20(2):1200-1216.
|
| [27] |
Ma J, Tang Z, Lv F, Yang C, Liu W, Zheng Y, et al.High-sensitivity ultrasonic guided wave monitoring of pipe defects using adaptive principal component analysis.Sensors 2021; 21(19):6640.
|
| [28] |
Wu J, Yang Y, Lin Z, Lin Y, Wang Y, Zhang W, et al.Weak ultrasonic guided wave signal recognition based on one-dimensional convolutional neural network denoising autoencoder and its application to small defect detection in pipelines.Measurement 2025; 242:116234.
|
| [29] |
Pyle RJ, Bevan RL, Hughes RR, Rachev RK, Ali AAS, Wilcox PD.Deep learning for ultrasonic crack characterization in NDE.IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 2020; 68(5):1854-1865.
|
| [30] |
Seghier MEAB, Keshtegar B, Taleb-Berrouane M, Abbassi R, Trung NT.Advanced intelligence frameworks for predicting maximum pitting corrosion depth in oil and gas pipelines.Process Saf Environ Prot 2021; 147:818-833.
|
| [31] |
Miao X, Zhao H.Maximum pitting corrosion depth prediction of buried pipeline based on theory-guided machine learning.Int J Press Vessels Piping 2024; 210:105259.
|
| [32] |
Xie J, Zhang Y, He Z, Liu P, Qin Y, Wang Z, et al.Automated leakage detection method of pipeline networks under complicated backgrounds by combining infrared thermography and Faster R-CNN technique.Proc Saf Environ Prot 2023; 174:39-52.
|
| [33] |
Yang D, Cui Y, Yu Z, Yuan H.Deep learning based steel pipe weld defect detection.Appl Artif Intell 2021; 35(15):1237-1249.
|
| [34] |
Wang W, Gao Y.Pipeline leak detection method based on acoustic-pressure information fusion.Measurement 2023; 212:112691.
|
| [35] |
Miao X, Zhao H.Leakage diagnosis of natural gas pipeline based on multi-source heterogeneous information fusion.Int J Press Vessels Piping 2024; 209:105202.
|
| [36] |
Enbridge and microsoft: a collaboration for safety, for innovation, for efficiency. Report. Calgary: Enbridge Inc; 2024.
|
| [37] |
Irsyam D.How AI is fueling efficiency: lessons from shell’s gas industry transformation.Report. San Francisco: Medium; 2024.
|
| [38] |
Petkovic M, Chen Y, Gamrath I, Gotzes U, Hadjidimitrou NS, Zittel J, et al.A hybrid approach for high precision prediction of gas flows.Energy Syst 2022; 13(2):383-408.
|
| [39] |
Laib O, Khadir MT, Mihaylova L.Toward efficient energy systems based on natural gas consumption prediction with LSTM recurrent neural networks.Energy 2019; 177:530-542.
|
| [40] |
Lenk A, Vogt M, Herrmann C.An approach to predicting energy demand within automobile production using the temporal fusion transformer model.Energies 2024; 18(1):2.
|
| [41] |
Ding J, Zhao Y, Jin J.Forecasting natural gas consumption with multiple seasonal patterns.Appl Energy 2023; 337:120911.
|
| [42] |
Zhou X, Wang J, Wang H, Lin J.Panel semiparametric quantile regression neural network for electricity consumption forecasting.Ecol Inform 2022; 67:101489.
|
| [43] |
Zhang C, Shafieezadeh A.Nested physics-informed neural network for analysis of transient flows in natural gas pipelines.Eng Appl Artif Intel 2023; 122:106073.
|
| [44] |
Yang Z, Liu Z, Zhou J, Song C, Xiang Q, He Q, et al.A graph neural network (GNN) method for assigning gas calorific values to natural gas pipeline networks.Energy 2023; 278:127875.
|
| [45] |
Wang C, Zhou D, Wang X, Liu S, Shao T, Shui C, et al.Multiscale graph based spatio–temporal graph convolutional network for energy consumption prediction of natural gas transmission process.Energy 2024; 307:132489.
|
| [46] |
Liu ZE, Long W, Chen Z, Littlefield J, Jing L, Ren B, et al.A novel optimization framework for natural gas transportation pipeline networks based on deep reinforcement learning.Energy AI 2024; 18:100434.
|
| [47] |
Karniadakis GE, Kevrekidis IG, Lu L, Perdikaris P, Wang S, Yang L.Physics-informed machine learning.Nat Rev Phys 2021; 3(6):422-440.
|
| [48] |
Du J, Zheng J, Liang Y, Xu N, Kleme JJš, Wang B, et al.Deeppipe: a two-stage physics-informed neural network for predicting mixed oil concentration distribution.Energy 2023; 276:127452.
|
| [49] |
Ehinmowo A, Ofum B, Olaide JO.Physics-informed neural networks for the prediction of critical sand transport velocity in oil and gas pipelines.J Eng Res 2024; 29(4):31-40.
|
| [50] |
Law S.How Aramco is harnessing the power of AI and big data.Report. Technology Magazine; 2024.
|
| [51] |
BP’s AI strategy: analysis of dominance in energy AI. Klover.ai. 2025.
|
| [52] |
Ntoutsi E, Fafalios P, Gadiraju U, Iosifidis V, Nejdl W, Vidal ME, et al.Bias in data‐driven artificial intelligence systems—an introductory survey.Wiley Interdiscip Rev Data Min Knowl Discov 2020; 10(3):e1356.
|
| [53] |
Spandonidis C, Theodoropoulos P, Giannopoulos F, Galiatsatos N, Petsa A.Evaluation of deep learning approaches for oil & gas pipeline leak detection using wireless sensor networks.Eng Appl Artif Intel 2022; 113:104890.
|
| [54] |
Moryan NC.High precision pipeline leak detection and localization using negative pressure wave technique: an application in a real field case study [dissertation]. West Virginia University, Morgantown (2022)
|
| [55] |
Zhang Z, Wang Y, Lin N, Ren S.Improved deep convolutional generative adversarial network for data augmentation of gas polyethylene pipeline defect images.Appl Sci 2025; 15(8):4293.
|
| [56] |
Li X, Li R, Han Z, Yuan XA, Liu X.An intelligent monitoring approach for urban natural gas pipeline leak using semi-supervised learning generative adversarial networks.J Loss Prev Process Ind 2024; 92:105476.
|
| [57] |
Wang D, Sun Y, Lu J.Pipeline leak detection based on generative adversarial networks under small samples.Flow Meas Instrum 2025; 101:102745.
|
| [58] |
Murdoch WJ, Singh C, Kumbier K, Abbasi-Asl R, Yu B.Definitions, methods, and applications in interpretable machine learning.Proc Natl Acad Sci 2019; 116(44):22071-22080.
|
| [59] |
Zhou D, Jia X, Ma S, Shao T, Huang D, Hao J, et al.Dynamic simulation of natural gas pipeline network based on interpretable machine learning model.Energy 2022; 253:124068.
|
| [60] |
Zhang X, Shi J, Yang M, Huang X, Usmani AS, Chen G, et al.Real-time pipeline leak detection and localization using an attention-based LSTM approach.Process Saf Environ Prot 2023; 174:460-472.
|
| [61] |
Kaloudi N, Li J.The AI-based cyber threat landscape: a survey.ACM Comput Surv 2020; 53(1):1-34.
|
| [62] |
IEEE Public Safety Technology. Cybersecurity of critical infrastructure with ICS/SCADA systems. Report. New York City: IEEE Technical Report; 2024.
|
| [63] |
Anthi E, Williams L, Rhode M, Burnap P, Wedgbury A.Adversarial attacks on machine learning cybersecurity defences in industrial control systems.J Inf Secur Appl 2021; 58:102717.
|
| [64] |
Dang L, Hapuarachchi T, Xiong K, Lin J.Improving machine learning robustness via adversarial training.In: Proceedings of 2023 32nd International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks (ICCCN); 2023 Jul 24–27; Honolulu, H I, USA. IEE E; 2023.
|
| [65] |
Klingbeil A, Grützner C, Schreck P.Trust and reliance on AI—an experimental study on the extent and costs of overreliance on AI.Comput Human Behav 2024; 160:108352.
|
| [66] |
Gombolay M, Bair A, Huang C, Shah J.Computational design of mixed-initiative human–robot teaming that considers human factors: situational awareness, workload, and workflow preferences.Int J Rob Res 2017; 36(5–7):597-617.
|
| [67] |
Afzal U, Prouzeau A, Lawrence L, Dwyer T, Bichinepally S, Liebman A, et al.Investigating cognitive load in energy network control rooms: recommendations for future designs.Front Psychol 2022; 13:812677.
|
| [68] |
Janizadeh R, Choobineh A, Charkhabi SA, Jahangiri M.Looking beyond the screen: a systematic review of safety in control rooms.Heliyon 2024; 10(3):e25118.
|
| [69] |
Zhang Y, Yao L, Zhang L, Luo H.Fault diagnosis of natural gas pipeline leakage based on 1D-CNN and self-attention mechanism.In: Proceedings of 2022 IEE E6th Advanced Information Technology, Electronic and Automation Control Conference (IAEAC); 2022 Oct 3–5; Beijing, China. IEE E; 2022. p. 1282–6.
|
| [70] |
Mahmood Y, Chen J, Yodo N, Huang Y.Optimizing natural gas pipeline risk assessment using hybrid fuzzy Bayesian networks and expert elicitation for effective decision-making strategies.Gas Sci Eng 2024; 125:205283.
|
| [71] |
Pourpanah F, Abdar M, Luo Y, Zhou X, Wang R, Lim CP, et al.A review of generalized zero-shot learning methods.IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 2022; 45(4):4051-4070.
|
| [72] |
Canonaco G, Roveri M, Alippi C, Podenzani F, Bennardo A, Conti M, et al.A transfer-learning approach for corrosion prediction in pipeline infrastructures.Appl Intell 2022; 52(7):8628-8643.
|
| [73] |
Yao L, Chu Z, Li S, Li Y, Gao J, Zhang A.A survey on causal inference.ACM Trans Knowl Discov Data 2021; 15(5):1-46.
|
| [74] |
Campari A, Ustolin F, Alvaro A, Paltrinieri N.Inspection of hydrogen transport equipment: a data-driven approach to predict fatigue degradation.Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2024; 251:110342.
|
| [75] |
Shokouhi P, Kumar V, Prathipati S, Hosseini SA, Giles CL, Kifer D.Physics-informed deep learning for prediction of CO2 storage site response.J Contam Hydrol 2021; 241:103835.
|
| [76] |
Wang N, Sarvesh M, Lawton B, Wells B, Kang R, Nam H, et al.SHAPE: safe hydrogen agile pipeline engineering with XR and AI-enhanced digital twins.In: Proceedings of 2025 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW); 2025 Mar 8–12; Saint Malo, France. IEE E; 2025. p. 1115–22.
|
