AI‑Enabled Well Integrity Management

1) Technical Challenges 

• End‑to‑end blind spots across the lifecycle: Integrity decisions span design, construction, operations/monitoring, interventions, and P&A. Today, data and workflows are siloed (historian/SCADA, DDR, inspection logs, workover reports), limiting timely, holistic risk visibility.
• Barrier verification is manual and reactive: Acceptance criteria and evidence for primary/secondary barriers—DHSV, Christmas Tree/Wellhead valves and seals, tubing hangers, packers, casing, and cement—are fragmented across tests and logs, delaying detection of micro‑annuli, channels, voids, tubular defects, and seal failures.
• Limited forecasting of abnormal behaviors: There is insufficient predictive capability for Sustained Annulus Pressure (SAP), Abnormal Annulus Behavior (AAB), and casing corrosion progression under varying chemical/thermal regimes (CO₂, H₂S, chlorides; temperature/pressure cycles).
• Plan vs. actual deviations are surfaced late: Design assumptions (barrier strategy, cement objectives) are not continuously reconciled against real‑time execution, so deviations escape early detection.
• Compliance and audit burden: Producing standards‑aligned, traceable proof (API/ISO/NORSOK), alarms, notifications, dashboards, and signed approval trails is labor‑intensive and error‑prone.
• Scale and data discipline: Rolling out across diverse offshore assets demands consistent QA/QC, common workflows, and multi‑year historical datasets for reliable AI modeling.

2) Expected Solution Capabilities

• Single integrated platform: Unified web application consolidating schematics, casing/cement plans, DDR extracts, inspection logs, and real‑time data streams; role‑based access; API‑driven integration with third‑party systems; embedded data quality control.
• AI‑powered analytics:
  • Automated barrier verification & acceptance workflow (criteria, validation methods, approval roles, audit trail).
  • SAP investigation & prediction, annulus leak detection, and risk management/escalation with severity‑based prioritization and recommended actions.
  • Predictive simulations for barrier failure and corrosion, with “what‑if” scenarios.
  • Optional digital twin visualization and simulation for real‑time verification.
• Operational control & automation:
  • Plan vs. actual monitoring, action recommendations, configurable dashboards & reports, and multi‑channel alarms/notifications (email/SMS/in‑app) aligned by severity.
  • Approval/signing modules with digital signatures and routed workflows (prepare–review–approve).
• User experience & decision support: Role‑tailored interfaces; interactive advisory/tutoring that suggests investigation steps, recommendations, and conclusions for well integrity issues.
• ML‑Ops & continuous improvement: Full pipeline from data prep to deployment and monitoring; concept‑drift management; scheduled retraining as new data becomes available.
• Non‑functional requirements: Security and access control; scalability across fields/well types; modular architecture; performance and reliability SLAs; auditability and traceability.

3) Co‑Development

Co‑development is welcomed. Vendors should outline how they will work jointly with our SMEs to refine acceptance criteria, structure data, tailor models, and adapt workflows/dashboards to asset‑specific realities for rapid operational impact.