Chemical-EOR formulation
Screen surfactant candidates on interfacial behavior and CMC — before your first bottle test.
Narrow a candidate list computationally, then confirm the strongest ones in the lab — not the other way around.
Contact temporarily paused — finalizing data-handling registration.
Business impact
Spend synthesis budget on candidates that clear a screen first.
Every surfactant candidate that reaches the bench costs reagents, technician time, and calendar weeks — before you even know if it performs. Screening computationally first turns that into a triage step: rule out weak candidates before they consume lab budget, and walk into synthesis with a candidate list that's already been checked against the physics.
- Physical synthesis reserved for candidates that clear a molecular-scale screen first
- A shorter path from candidate list to bottle-test decision
- Lab budget spent confirming a checked shortlist, not triaging a blind one
How we get you there
Interfacial tension, CMC, and adsorption — computed, not assumed
Candidates are screened on molecular-scale physics: interfacial-tension behavior, critical micelle concentration, adsorption free energy, and aggregation behavior. Where a published reference system exists, we benchmark against it to the highest standard we hold ourselves to — citations available on request.
Water / n-decane interfacial tension baseline
Matched within tolerance against published reference literature — the unloaded baseline every surfactant-loaded system is measured against.
Surfactant-mediated IFT reduction (shape of curve)
Benchmarked against published reference literature — the reduction curve's shape matches. This confirms the mechanism direction, not fine-grained ranking between close candidates.
Molecular-scale simulation (nanometer length, nanosecond-to-microsecond timescale) — a mechanism-plausibility read, not a field-scale reservoir recovery-factor prediction.
In the published literature
Published EOR literature has directly compared surfactant candidate classes for critical micelle concentration under representative field-brine and temperature conditions — finding meaningful behavioral differences between classes under the same conditions, the kind of variability a molecular-scale screen is meant to catch before synthesis.
Where this fits
A computational triage step, not a lab replacement
This narrows a candidate list before physical synthesis and bottle testing — it doesn't replace them. The point is spending lab budget confirming a shortlist that's already cleared a molecular-scale screen, not ruling out candidates one bottle test at a time. What this screen doesn't do: pick an optimal salinity or read Winsor phase type — molecular dynamics gives a qualitative, not quantitative, read on phase behavior, so that stage stays a physical salinity scan, not a simulated one.
Scope your candidates before you synthesize.
Contact temporarily paused — finalizing data-handling registration.