Third-party chemistry screening
Screen a vendor-proposed chemistry through the same physics — before you commit to it.
One additional, independently-run input for your own diligence — not a certification of a vendor's claims, and not a substitute for your own physical confirmation testing.
Contact temporarily paused — finalizing data-handling registration.
Business impact
Add an independent data point before you commit budget to someone else's chemistry.
A vendor-proposed formulation, a licensed chemistry, or a third party's technical claim usually arrives supported only by the proposing party's own data. Running it through the same native screening capability used for in-house candidates gives your own team a second, independently-run read — one input into your diligence process, alongside your own physical confirmation testing, before a supply agreement or field trial is committed.
- An independently-run data point on a proposed chemistry, before budget or supply terms are committed
- The same native screen used for in-house candidates, applied to a candidate someone else proposed
- One more input for your own diligence process — alongside your own confirmation testing, not instead of it
How we get you there
The same native engine, pointed at a candidate you didn't design
A vendor-proposed, licensed, or third-party formulation — where it falls within our native capabilities: interfacial and surfactant behavior, wettability response, miscible-gas screening, and PVT/scale compatibility — is run through the same native engine and evaluation practice used for in-house candidates, regardless of who proposed the chemistry.
Interfacial & surfactant behavior
The same IFT, CMC, and adsorption screening used for in-house candidates, applied to a vendor-proposed formulation.
Wettability & miscibility screening
Checked against your named reservoir mineralogy and injection conditions, not the vendor's own test conditions.
PVT & scale compatibility
Checked against your actual fluid and brine chemistry, independent of the vendor's stated operating envelope.
Combines molecular-scale simulation and bulk-continuum thermodynamic modeling, matching whichever native capability applies to the candidate — a mechanism-plausibility read at each respective scale, not a field-scale reservoir recovery-factor prediction, and not a certification of vendor performance.
In the published literature
An industry consortium (BP, Chevron, Shell, Statoil) documented, as an explicit lesson learned, that the standard test methods used to characterize vendor-supplied EOR chemistry are not always sufficient on their own — standard polymer rheology and filtration-ratio tests were found not accurate or stringent enough for some applications — and recommended operators independently re-verify vendor-supplied chemistry themselves, in their own brine and under their own conditions, rather than relying on vendor data or a standard spec test alone.
Where this fits
Due diligence on a chemistry you didn't design
This is the same screening capability used elsewhere on this site, pointed at a candidate someone else is proposing — a due-diligence step ahead of a supply agreement or field trial, not a certification of the vendor's own claims and not a substitute for your own physical confirmation testing.
Screen the chemistry before you commit to the agreement.
Contact temporarily paused — finalizing data-handling registration.