EOR Simulation Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- Filing has cooled since 2019. The peak year for this search string was 2019 at 11 families; by the 2022 midpoint activity had fallen to 6, and the trend has stayed flat-to-declining since.
- Software IPCs sit well below the drilling core. E21B covers almost the entire set, but G06F (digital data processing) reaches only 29 records and G06N (AI-based computing) just 11 — the simulation layer is thinner than the drilling layer it serves.
- Co-filing is sparse and clustered in one corporate family. Only 10 co-assignee pairs exist across 107 families, and the strongest links all run through Schlumberger-affiliated entities rather than across competitors.
Filing growth compares 2021 (7 records) with 2024 (0) — a three-year span. 2024 is the most recent year we treat as complete: publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so 2025 onwards are still filling in and any growth rate that ends there would understate the field. Top-5 share is the combined record count of the five largest assignees divided by all 107 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks patent families at the intersection of enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and the computational tools used to plan and verify it: reservoir simulation, compositional simulation, flow modeling and history matching. The search combines EOR/tertiary-recovery terminology with simulation-specific language, then filters to E21B43/16 (recovery methods), G06F30 (design/simulation computing) and E21B49 (formation testing), so the corpus is deliberately narrow: it is the modeling and simulation slice of EOR, not EOR hardware as a whole.
107 patent families published between 2015 and mid-2026 meet the criteria. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the 2025–2026 counts in any trend chart are undercounts of actual filing activity and should be read as provisional.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 107 families: filings by year, and the IPC subclasses those filings sit in. Together they show a field that peaked several years ago and remains anchored in drilling-specific IPC codes rather than general-purpose computing ones.
Filings have declined from a 2019 peak
Annual filings rose to 11 in 2019, the peak so far, then eased toward the 2022 midpoint of 6 and have not recovered. Read the final one to two years as partial, given publication lag.
E21B dominates; software codes are secondary
E21B (earth and rock drilling) appears in nearly every family, confirming this is fundamentally a subsurface-recovery corpus. C09K (recovery-process materials) and G06F (digital data processing) trail well behind, and G06N (AI-based computing) and G06Q (business/admin computing) are minor at 11 and 9 records respectively — the analytics layer is present but not yet the center of gravity.
Shares are the percentage of the 107 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Enhanced Oil Recovery Simulation and Modeling with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about enhanced oil recovery simulation and modeling and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records in this corpus
US20210165126A1 — Method for improved recovery in ultra-tight reservoirs based on diffusion
A method for improved prediction and enhancement of hydrocarbon recovery from ultra-tight/unconventional reservoirs for both primary production and subsequent solvent huff'n'puff periods, based on facilitating the diffusion process. Steps include defining initial reservoir properties and integrating characterization data, defining a wellbore trajectory and completion/stimulation parameters, specifying operating conditions for a current development cycle, and performing diffusion-based dynamic fracture/reservoir simulation to calculate hydrocarbon recovery and efficiency.Filed by The Penn State Research Foundation — an example of a university-originated simulation method reaching the patent system ahead of the operators who would deploy it.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US4753666A | Distillative processing of CO2 and hydrocarbons for enhanced oil recovery | 137 |
| 2 | US20100300682A1 | Computer-implemented systems and methods for screening and predicting the performance of enhanced oil recover… | 97 |
| 3 | WO2014205163A1 | Process for enhanced oil recovery using capture of carbon dioxide | 61 |
| 4 | US20210165126A1 | Method for improved recovery in ultra-tight reservoirs based on diffusion | 32 |
| 5 | GB2379685A | Enhanced oil recovery with asynchronous cyclic variation of injection rates | 29 |
| 6 | WO2013117741A1 | Enhanced oil recovery process using low salinity water | 28 |
| 7 | US20160063150A1 | Enhanced oil recovery using digital core sample | 27 |
| 8 | WO2018213083A1 | Advanced technique for screening enhanced oil recovery and improved oil recovery methodologies for a petroleu… | 21 |
| 9 | WO2019178432A1 | Method for improved recovery in ultra-tight reservoirs based on diffusion | 16 |
| 10 | US20200202060A1 | Advanced technique for screening enhanced oil recovery and improved oil recovery methodologies for a petroleu… | 16 |
Citation counts accumulate over time, so older filings are structurally favored; a high count signals influence on later filers, not current commercial relevance.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
Put your own technology through the same analysis
Eureka on the web
When you want the answer in the next five minutes.
The agent works the prompt against patents and technical literature, citing every source.
Run your analysis now →MCP server & REST API
When it has to run inside your own pipeline.
Patent search, landscape analysis and assignee resolution as MCP tools. Drop them into any agent framework, or call REST directly.
Browse MCP servers →What the numbers imply for strategy
Four read-throughs from the filing and citation data, aimed at where to spend diligence time rather than at repeating the chart.
The wave has already crested
Filing rose to a peak in 2019 and has since declined to roughly half that rate by 2022. A shrinking filing rate in a niche this specific usually means either the core techniques are settled and defended, or operators have shifted spend toward adjacent AI-driven modeling that this search string does not fully capture.
This is a drilling-domain corpus first
Almost every family carries an E21B classification, meaning the simulation and modeling claims are drafted in service of a specific recovery or well operation rather than as standalone software. Filers wanting freedom to operate need to clear drilling-domain prior art, not just general simulation patents.
Influence sits with older, broader filings
The most-cited record in this set is a 1980s-era CO2/hydrocarbon distillative processing patent, followed by a computer-implemented screening method from 2010. Both predate the current wave of AI-assisted history matching, so citation rank here reflects foundational influence, not what is being actively asserted today.
Co-filing is rare and mostly intra-group
With only 10 co-assignee pairs across the corpus, most filers are working alone. The strongest pairings link entities that are effectively the same corporate family under different registered names, which suggests limited cross-company joint development in this niche.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to enhanced oil recovery simulation and modeling, with the prior art for and against each one.
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| Schlumberger Limited | Geoquest Systems Inc. | 7 |
| Schlumberger Technology Corporation | Schlumberger Canada Limited | 4 |
| Schlumberger Technology Corporation | Schlumberger Limited | 4 |
| Schlumberger Limited | Schlumberger Canada Limited | 4 |
| Schlumberger Limited | Schlumberger Holdings Limited | 4 |
| Schlumberger Limited | Schlumberger Technology LLC | 4 |
| Schlumberger Holdings Limited | Schlumberger Technology LLC | 4 |
| Schlumberger Technology Corporation | Shell Oil Company | 3 |
The densest links run through Schlumberger-affiliated entities registered under different names across jurisdictions, not across competing operators.
Assignee landscape
Filing here is led by oilfield-services and major-operator names, with recent-year momentum flat across the most active assignees — none of the leading filers in this set added a new family in the latest tracked year, consistent with the broader post-2019 slowdown.
Momentum has stalled at the top
Every assignee in the recent-momentum ranking, including the oilfield-services and major-operator names with the deepest portfolios, shows zero filings in the latest tracked year. That is consistent with the broader decline from the 2019 peak rather than a single company pulling back.
One group files under several registered entities
Schlumberger-affiliated names appear repeatedly under distinct registrations — technology, holdings, and country-specific entities. Tracking this filer accurately means aggregating across those names rather than relying on any single one.
US and PCT filings lead, Canada and Europe follow closely
The United States receives the most filings, with WIPO/PCT applications close behind, followed by Canada, Europe and Australia at similar levels. That spread points to filers protecting EOR simulation methods across the main producing and licensing jurisdictions rather than concentrating on a single home market.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| BP Exploration Operating Company Limited | 0 | — |
| Chevron U.S.A. Inc. | 0 | — |
| Schlumberger Technology Corporation | 0 | — |
| Schlumberger Limited | 0 | — |
| ConocoPhillips Company | 0 | — |
| Geoquest Systems Inc. | 0 | — |
| Schlumberger Canada Limited | 0 | — |
| University of Houston System | 0 | -100% |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is defensive clearance or offensive filing strategy.
Run a freedom-to-operate check on the thin branches
G06N (AI-based computing) and G06Q (business/admin computing) have the lowest record counts in this set relative to their growing role in reservoir decision-making — a targeted clearance search there is cheaper than in the crowded E21B core.
Explore in EurekaMap the Schlumberger-affiliated entity cluster in full
Co-assignee pairs show the same corporate group registered under several names; a full entity-resolution pass will reveal a larger effective portfolio than any single assignee name suggests.
Explore in EurekaTrack whether the post-2019 decline is a pivot, not a slowdown
Filing activity easing since 2019 could reflect a shift toward AI-modeling filings classified outside this search string; broadening the query to adjacent G06N terminology would test that.
Explore in EurekaCommon questions about EOR simulation patents
This category covers patent families that combine enhanced oil recovery or tertiary recovery methods with computational techniques such as reservoir simulation, compositional simulation, flow modeling, or history matching. In IPC terms that typically means E21B43/16 (recovery methods) or E21B49 (formation testing) paired with G06F30-style simulation classifications. The dataset used for this landscape applies exactly that combination, which is why it captures 107 families rather than the much larger set of general EOR patents.
Filing is led by a mix of oilfield-services companies and major integrated operators, several of which appear under multiple registered entity names across jurisdictions. Recent-year momentum has flattened across all of the top filers tracked in this dataset, with none adding a new family in the most recent year — consistent with the broader decline from the 2019 peak. Anyone benchmarking a specific company should aggregate its various registered entities, since corporate group structure otherwise understates true filing volume.
The filing trend in this dataset peaked in 2019 at 11 families and had fallen to roughly half that by 2022, with no recovery since. Part of the apparent decline is a publication-lag artifact — filings from 2025 and 2026 are still working through the roughly 18-month gap between filing and publication. The remainder likely reflects either a maturing, well-defended core technique set or a shift in filing activity toward adjacent AI-modeling classifications not fully captured by this search string.
The clearest gaps sit in AI-assisted history matching, CO2-EOR compositional simulation coupling, and real-time diffusion modeling for ultra-tight reservoirs — branches where the underlying G06N and C09K-adjacent classifications show low record counts relative to their growing operational role. Cyclic injection-rate optimization and uncertainty quantification in screening tools are similarly thin. None of this means the space is legally clear, since general software or AI patents outside this narrow search string could still apply, but filing density inside the EOR-specific corpus is low.
Ownership is moderately concentrated at the top but with a long tail of single-filing entrants, and cross-company collaboration is rare: only 10 co-assignee pairs exist across all 107 families. The strongest co-filing links run within a single corporate group registered under different names rather than between competing companies, suggesting most development in this niche happens inside individual organizations rather than through joint ventures or shared research programs.
Research Enhanced Oil Recovery Simulation and Modeling in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole enhanced oil recovery simulation and modeling corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
Disclaimer. This page is generated from Patsnap Eureka data drawn from a limited snapshot of global patent and scientific-literature records, and is provided for general information and reference only.
Patent data carries inherent limitations: recent filings (typically the most recent 18–24 months) are under-counted due to standard publication lag; counts may be reported at either a patent-family or a patent-record basis and are not always directly comparable; classification, applicant-name, and citation data may contain errors, duplicates, or omissions; and the underlying search query defines and constrains the scope shown. As a result, the analysis may be incomplete or inaccurate and may not reflect the full technology landscape.
Nothing on this page constitutes an exhaustive prior-art, novelty, freedom-to-operate, or validity search, nor does it constitute legal, financial, investment, or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. Any patent, commercial, or strategic decision should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent, legal, and domain professionals. Patsnap makes no warranties, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, or fitness for any particular purpose of the information presented.
Machine translation. Assignee and organisation names originally recorded in Chinese, Japanese or Korean have been rendered into English by an AI translation step so that the tables stay readable. These renderings are best-effort and may not match a company’s registered English name; the original name is what the underlying patent record carries, and it is what any Eureka query launched from this page uses.