Fastest
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 →https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/shale-reservoir-characterisation-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Shale Reservoir CharacterisationShale reservoir characterisation patents: who holds the claim space and where it opens up
- Five assignees hold 71.3% of the field. 107 of 150 records in scope sit with the top five ranked assignees, leaving a long tail of single-digit filers behind them.
- Filing has cooled from its 2018 peak. 28 records published in 2018 versus a documented drop from 10 in 2021 to 5 in 2024, a 50% fall over that span.
- Geophysics and drilling claims dominate, AI-based scoring barely has a foothold. G01V and E21B each sit above 40% of records while G06N (AI-based computing) reaches only 4.0%.
150
Published Records
71%
Top-5 Share of All Records
-50%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction
Filing growth compares 2021 (10 records) with 2024 (5) — 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 150 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this landscape covers
Shale reservoir characterisation patenting sits at the intersection of geophysical surveying, well and core analysis, and increasingly, computational interpretation of the resulting data. The 150 records in scope span filings that claim thermal maturity assessment, kerogen typing, brittleness indexing, nanopore structure measurement and adsorbed gas fraction estimation, alongside the organic carbon quantification methods that underpin all of them.
Filings concentrate around the wellbore and the geophysical survey rather than around downstream computation. That pattern matters for anyone deciding where to file next: the classes with the deepest prior art are exactly the ones the ranked leaders have already occupied.
Filing activity and technology composition, 2015–2026
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Shale Reservoir Characterisation covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
The data
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 150 records: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claims.
Filing trend: a 2018 peak, then a documented pullback
Filings rose to a peak of 28 in 2018, then eased. The only clean year-over-year comparison the data supports is 2021 to 2024, where filings fell from 10 to 5 records, a 50% drop. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, 2025 and 2026 figures are still filling in and should not be read as a continued decline.
Technology composition: wellbore and survey claims dominate
G01V (geophysics and gravity surveying) and E21B (earth and rock drilling) each cover more than 40% of the 150 records in scope, with G01N (material analysis and testing) close behind at 31.3%. Software-side classes are thinner: G06F reaches 9.3% and G06N, covering AI-based computing, only 4.0%. Because records can carry multiple IPC classes, these shares add up to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 150 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Shale Reservoir Characterisation covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Shale Reservoir Characterisation with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about shale reservoir characterisation and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey patents
A representative filing and the most-cited prior art
Representative filing
Method for the estimation of kerogen maturity by x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy
YPF TECNOLOGIA S.A.
Method to estimate the kerogen maturity of a rock containing organic material by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS). Significant changes in the XPS spectrum due to changes in C hybridization, particularly sp2 hybridization, allow to quantify kerogen maturity by comparison with an already known sample.Filed by YPF Tecnologia, published 2018-10-04 as US20180284041A1.
Most-cited records in the corpus
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20100105975A1 | Nuclear Assisted Hydrocarbon Production Method | 76 |
| 2 | US20130270011A1 | Reservoir and completion quality assessment in unconventional (shale gas) wells without logs or core | 73 |
| 3 | US20180347354A1 | Collaborative sensing and prediction of source rock properties | 71 |
| 4 | US20160186556A1 | Method and Apparatus for Evaluation of Hydrocarbon-Bearing Reservoirs | 50 |
| 5 | US20180321416A1 | Method for formation evaluation of organic shale reservoirs using well logging data | 48 |
| 6 | US20150293256A1 | Method and system of determining characteristics of a formation | 44 |
| 7 | US8967249B2 | Reservoir and completion quality assessment in unconventional (shale gas) wells without logs or core | 42 |
| 8 | US20190345815A1 | Systematic Evaluation of Shale Plays | 41 |
| 9 | US20190129056A1 | Formation characterization system | 40 |
| 10 | US20160139293A1 | Subsurface Estimation of Level of Organic Maturity | 38 |
Citation counts favour older filings that have had more time to accumulate citations within this searched corpus; treat them as a signal of influence rather than of current technical importance.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Citation counts and representative records. Derived from a Patsnap search on Shale Reservoir Characterisation covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Run it yourself
Put your own technology through the same analysis
Where to run it
For builders
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 →Insights
What the numbers mean for filing strategy
Three patterns stand out once the ranking, the trend and the IPC composition are read together.
Concentration
71.3% of 150 records
top 5 assignees
The field is held by a small group
The top five ranked assignees account for 107 of the 150 records in scope, and the top ten reach 98.7%. A single leader holds 47 records against a fifth-place figure of 10, so new entrants are filing into a field where the largest players have already staked out broad claim territory.
Ranking covers 36 companies in total
Momentum
10 → 5 records
2021 to 2024
Filing has pulled back from its peak
Activity peaked at 28 records in 2018 and the most recent complete comparison, 2021 to 2024, shows a 50% drop. Recent-year momentum among the largest named assignees also shows zero filings in the latest year across the group, though that figure is affected by publication lag.
Peak year: 2018 at 28 records
Composition
41.3% vs 4.0%
G01V vs G06N
Physical measurement outweighs computation
Geophysics (G01V) and drilling (E21B) claims each exceed 40% of records, while AI-based computing (G06N) sits at just 4.0% and general data processing (G06F) at 9.3%. The measurement side of the field is thoroughly claimed; the analytical layer built on top of that data is comparatively open.
Shares sum to over 100% because records carry multiple IPC classes
Eureka AI Agent
Looking for what nobody has claimed yet?
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to shale reservoir characterisation, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Shale Reservoir Characterisation covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Players
Who is filing, and where the gaps sit
The ranked assignee list is dominated by oilfield services and national oil companies, with co-filing patterns that reveal internal corporate structure as much as external partnership.
Leader
47 records
top assignee
A single national oil company leads the ranking
The top-ranked assignee holds 47 of the 150 records in scope, well ahead of the fifth-place figure of 10 and the tenth-place figure of 7. That gap between first and fifth place is the clearest sign of how top-heavy this field is.
36 companies appear in the full ranking
Corporate structure
10 co-assignee pairs
strongest pair: 11 shared records
Co-filing mostly reflects internal group structure
The strongest co-assignee pairing links two entities under the same national oil company group at 11 shared records, and the next-strongest pairs both link entities inside the same oilfield services group at 5 shared records each. This looks like internal corporate filing structure rather than cross-company collaboration.
10 co-assignee pairs recorded overall
Geography
59 filings
United States receiving office
Filing is concentrated in the US and via PCT
The United States receiving office accounts for 59 filings, with WIPO (PCT) filings at 26 and EPO at 15. Australia, Saudi Arabia and Canada each register in single digits, suggesting protection is being sought broadly through the PCT route before narrowing to specific national phases.
Receiving offices: US 59, WIPO 26, EPO 15, Australia 12, SA 8, Canada 7
Recent-year momentum by assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Saudi Arabian Oil Co (Saudi Aramco) | 0 | — |
| Schlumberger Technology Corp | 0 | — |
| Aramco Services Co | 0 | — |
| Equinor Energy AS | 0 | — |
| Schlumberger Technology BV | 0 | — |
| ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company | 0 | — |
| Landmark Graphics Corp | 0 | — |
| Schlumberger Ltd | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Shale Reservoir Characterisation covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
What's next
Where to take this analysis
The ranking and the IPC composition point to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is defensive clearance or new filing.
Map claim scope against the top five assignees
With 71.3% of records held by five assignees, a freedom-to-operate review should start with their claim language in G01V and E21B before looking at the long tail.
Explore the assignee ranking in EurekaTest the AI-scoring gap for a first filing
G06N sits at only 4.0% of records against G01V at 41.3%, suggesting AI-based interpretation of existing measurement data is comparatively open claim space.
Run a white space search in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Shale Reservoir Characterisation covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Common questions on shale reservoir characterisation patents
The ranking of 36 companies is heavily top-loaded: the leading assignee holds 47 of the 150 records in scope, and the top five together hold 107 records, or 71.3% of the field. This is dominated by a national oil company alongside major oilfield services groups and their regional subsidiaries. A filer entering this space should expect to be measured against a small number of very large portfolios rather than a broad, fragmented field.
Filing peaked at 28 records in 2018 and the clearest recent comparison, 2021 to 2024, shows a drop from 10 to 5 records, a 50% decline. Figures for 2025 and 2026 are still incomplete because publication typically lags actual filing by around 18 months, so it would be premature to call the trend still falling based on the very latest years. The honest read is a pullback from a 2018 peak rather than a currently accelerating or currently collapsing field.
The two largest IPC subclasses are G01V (geophysics and gravity surveying) at 41.3% of the 150 records and E21B (earth and rock drilling for wells) at 40.7%, with G01N (material analysis and testing) at 31.3%. Software and AI-related classes are much smaller: G06F reaches 9.3% and G06N, covering AI-based computing, only 4.0%. Because a single record can carry several IPC classes, these percentages add up to more than 100% and should not be summed together.
The measurement side of the field, geophysical survey and drilling, is heavily claimed at over 40% of records each, while the analytical layer built on top of that data is much thinner: AI-based computing (G06N) sits at just 4.0% of records. Sub-areas like nanopore structure quantification, adsorbed gas fraction modelling and AI-based maturity scoring from spectral data show comparatively little claim density. Anyone filing new applications should look at pairing existing measurement techniques with underused computational claim structures rather than competing directly on the measurement method itself.
US20180284041A1, filed by YPF Tecnologia and published in 2018, claims a method for estimating kerogen maturity using X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), reading changes in carbon hybridisation, particularly sp2 hybridisation, against a known reference sample. It sits in a corner of the field, spectroscopic maturity estimation, that is distinct from the well-log and core-based approaches that dominate the most-cited records in this dataset. Anyone building an XPS-based maturity workflow should review this filing's specific claim scope before designing a comparable method.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Shale Reservoir Characterisation covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Shale Reservoir Characterisation in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole shale reservoir characterisation 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.