SURFACTANTS for the conventional formulation, under those same water conditions. 7
The application-oriented followup did not assume that the twofold CMC difference established the required dosage, rather both formulations were assessed across a dose range in operator-supplied water and crude oil with IFT reduction and contact-angle reduction as the end points.
The conventional formulation lost more than 60 % of its reduction capacity as dosage decreased. The biosurfactant formulation maintained reduction capacity across the range tested, and, at 250 ppm, exceeded the conventional formulation dosed at 1,000 ppm on both endpoints. 7
This is where the proxy fell short, and the result was quantitative rather than directional. CMC ordered the two candidates correctly and separated them by a factor of two, while the dose each required to meet the application endpoints differed by at least a factor of four. The screen was right about the ranking and uninformative about the effective dosage.
The subsequent field comparison confirmed the lab results: sustained oil production above forecast in the biosurfactant-treated well, unlike the conventional offset. These results are consistent with concentration-resilient interfacial behaviour, but they do not prove that CMC or monomer supply caused the production response.
Reservoir retention, wettability alteration, surfactant placement and interaction with heavier hydrocarbon fractions may also contribute. Figure 3 therefore pairs CMC with the application dose-response and field outcome, while keeping the mechanistic interpretation appropriately bounded.
Deciding what advances
When a failed screen has credible predictive support for the proposed use and no material counterevidence, rejecting the candidate at that gate is reasonable. If the predictive connection is uncertain, the screen is inconclusive about application performance. A team may still decline further work because other opportunities take priority, but should record that as the basis for the decision.
Where follow-up is justified, decide from the application result within the defined formulation and use range. Favourable physical measurements do not justify advancement when application criteria are not met. Equally, an unsupported explanation does not overturn demonstrated application performance.
The dimensions expand when considering newer or unfamiliar technology at a meaningful price differential. A chemistry that carries a premium must support economic arguments, including the most obvious of lower dose at equal performance, and neither a comparison run at equal actives nor a dose inferred from CMC can establish that differential alone.
For an unfamiliar molecule, the economic case rests on a measurement before it rests on a margin. If measurement uncertainty prevents a decision, report that limitation and apply the agreed limit on further work. Compare cost-in-use once formulations meet the same performance specification, including essential stability and tradeoff requirements.
None of this argues for a lower standard where the chemistry is unfamiliar. Rather, it asks what does a given measurement establish in the connection to desired outcomes? And, what optionality or solution space is undesirably, possibly unknowingly, narrowed by an early convergence on a decision to decline advancement in a program?
Indeed, CMC, surface tension, contact angle and wetting time measure what they have always measured reliably. What changes, as candidates depart from the molecules on which that connecting evidence was built, is the distance between what the measurement shows and what the application requires.
A proxy is not the requirement. That distance widens as the chemistry grows less familiar, which is precisely where the most is now being asked of our screens. This keeps the application requirement at the centre of evaluation, whether progress arrives as a refined grade of familiar chemistry or a different molecular architecture. ●
1: International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry( IUPAC), Compendium of Chemical Terminology( Gold Book), Critical Micelle Concentration( CMC), Entry C01395. https:// doi. org / 10.1351 / goldbook. C01395 2: H. W. Zeller, Laboratory Tests for Selecting Wetting Agents for Coal Dust Control, US Bureau of Mines, Report of Investigations 8815, 1983, pp. 14 – 17. 3: M. R. Pearl et al., Rethinking Surfactant Huff-n-Puff for Enhanced Oil Recovery in the |
Bakken, SPE-220801-MS, 2024. https:// doi. org / 10.2118 / 220801-MS 4: E. Kakadjian, S. Pradhan, E. Gutierrez & M. R. Pearl, Biosurfactant Nano-Micelles & Bio-Solvents: A Water-Based Approach to Remediate Organic Deposits, SPE-224306- MS, 2025. https:// doi. org / 10.2118 / 224306- MS 5: M. J. Rosen & J. T. Kunjappu, Surfactants and Interfacial Phenomena, 4th ed., |
Wiley, 2012, Chapter 3. https:// doi. org / 10.1002 / 9781118228920. ch3 6: U. R. M. Kjellin, P. J. Reimer & J. Hansson, J. Colloid Interface Sci., 2003, 262( 2), 506 – 515. https:// doi. org / 10.1016 / S0021- 9797( 03) 00168-1 7: M. R. Pearl, E. Kakadjian, J. Hancock et al., Unique Resiliency of Biosurfactants in the Lab & Field with Depleting Concentration, URTeC 4054941, 2024. https:// doi. org / 10.15530 / urtec-2024-4054941 |
Matt Prissel
VP, STRATEGIC SALES & MARKETING
LOCUS FERMENTATION SOLUTIONS
k + 1 440 4401382 J mprissel @ locusfs. com j www. locusfs. com
|
NOV / DEC 2026 SPECCHEMONLINE. COM
43