The global data set contains 12,421 published patents, translating into approximately 4,000 patent families. This analysis focuses on patent applications with a priority year from 2000 to 2012.
The top applicant in this data set is China Petroleum & Chemical Corporation (Sinopec Ltd.), a Chinese oil and gas company based in Beijing, China. Sinopec is the world's third largest company by revenue behind Royal Dutch Shell (second). Integrated oil companies account for seven of the world's top 10 ranked companies by revenueFootnote 1. Exxon Mobil Corporation, BP plc and China National Petroleum Corporation are the fourth, fifth and sixth largest companies worldwide.
Table 1 provides an overview of the patent landscape for the shale oil and gas industry sub-sector. This data set was restricted to patents that were extracted based on methodology described in Section II above, and Annex B.
Table 1: Summary of the shale oil and gas patent data set
Number of patent families
3,986
Priority year range
2000 to 2012
Applicants
3,627
Priority countries
41
Figure 1 shows the number of patent families in the data set by priority year since 2000. In the early stages of the decade, filings were relatively flat until 2003. From 2004 to 2007, filings tended to fluctuate. However, growth exceeded declines, and from 2008 onwards, filings experienced continued growth. Overall, priority filings for shale oil and gas patent families experienced a 188% increase in the number of filings between 2000 and 2012.
Figure 1: Shale oil and gas patent family filings by priority year
Priority year
Patent families filings
2000
166
2001
152
2002
150
2003
144
2004
238
2005
194
2006
307
2007
294
2008
344
2009
372
2010
426
2011
443
2012
478
Figure 2 shows the priority country distribution for the shale oil and gas patent family data set. The top three applicants are from China. There was a 2,020% increase in overall filings in China between 2000 and 2012. The United States is another major country where inventors are filing first, with slightly fewer filings than China. Combined, China and the United States account for 66% of all filings. If Japan is included, these three countries represent 83% of all priority applications. Only 2% of filings claim priority in Canada. PCT and European patent applications filed through WIPO and the European Patent Office (EPO) are identified by the country codes WO and EP, respectively.
Figure 2: Shale oil and gas filings by priority country distribution
Description of Figure 2
Figure 2: Shale oil and gas filings by priority country distribution
Priority countries
%
China
34 %
United States
32 %
Japan
17 %
Korea, Republic of
2 %
Russian Federation
2 %
European Patent Office (EPO)
2 %
Canada
2 %
Australia
1 %
World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO)
1 %
United Kingdom
1 %
Other
5 %
Figure 2 shows a bar chart indicating the priority country distribution for the shale oil and gas patent families dataset. All countries are represented with a dark red bar except Canada, represented by an orange bar.
Figure 3 shows the top applicants within the shale oil and gas industry sub-sector. The top spot is occupied by the China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation (Sinopec Ltd.), with 371 patent families. Other major players with 100 or more patent families include JX Nippon Oil and Energy Corporation (209), Exxon Mobil Corporation (141), Halliburton Energy Services Incorporated (140), and Schlumberger Limited (100). This data clearly shows that Chinese, American and Japanese companies are major producers of patent filings worldwide.
Figure 3: Top applicants
Description of Figure 3
Figure 3: Top applicants
Assignee/Applicant
Number of records
China Petroleum & Chemical Corp (China)
371
JX Nippon Oil & Energy Corp (Japan)
209
Exxon Mobil Corp (United States)
141
Halliburton Energy Services Inc. (United States)
140
Schlumberger Ltd (United States)
100
Cosmo Oil Co. Ltd (Japan)
81
Idemitsu Kosan Co. Ltd (Japan)
74
Royal Dutch Shell plc (Netherlands)
73
Baker Hughes Inc. (United States)
63
Nippon Steel Engineering Co. Ltd (Japan)
59
PetroChina Company Ltd (China)
57
Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corp (Japan)
55
PRAD Research and Development Ltd (Virgin Islands, British)
53
INPEX Corp (Japan)
50
Japan Petroleum Exploration Co. Ltd (Japan)
50
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. (United States)
45
Japan Energy Corp (Japan)
45
M-I L.L.C. (United States)
40
Petroleum Energy Center, A Juridical Inc. Found (Japan)
39
China University Of Petroleum (China)
30
Catalysts & Chemicals Industries Co. Ltd (Japan)
28
Curtis, Philip Anthony (Great Britain)
26
National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (Japan)
26
ZH Sekiyu Sangyo Kasseika Centre (Japan)
26
IFP Energies nouvelles (France)
24
Figure 3 shows a bar chart for the top applicants within the Shale Oil and Gas industry sub-sector.
Figure 4 depicts the top applicant filing activities since 2000. Given the size of the large multinational corporations that rank among the top applicants, it is not surprising that most of these companies have been involved in the field of shale oil and gas over the past decade. It is also no surprise to see new entrants in this field as demand increases for new and cheaper ways to extract and refine shale oil and gas.
Figure 4: Top applicant activity between 2000 and 2012
Description of Figure 4
Figure 4: Top applicant activity between 2000 and 2012
Applicants
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
China Petroleum & Chemical Corp (China)
6
11
9
12
15
12
18
18
24
42
60
75
55
10
JX Nippon Oil & Energy Corp (Japan)
3
2
2
8
18
14
30
20
22
35
26
18
11
Exxon Mobil Corp (United States)
13
6
5
9
15
4
12
20
10
12
13
6
6
Halliburton Energy Services Inc. (United States)
6
5
4
12
16
10
21
4
6
14
10
13
18
3
Schlumberger Ltd (United States)
3
3
4
3
4
11
10
18
10
16
3
12
1
Cosmo Oil Co. Ltd (Japan)
1
3
3
1
5
3
3
5
15
16
10
10
5
Idemitsu Kosan Co. Ltd (Japan)
5
8
12
10
14
2
3
6
4
5
2
1
Royal Dutch Shell plc (Netherlands)
11
9
5
2
4
3
9
8
3
6
4
4
8
Baker Hughes Inc. (United States)
4
2
3
4
3
4
2
5
11
7
6
7
1
Nippon Steel Engineering Co. Ltd (Japan)
1
2
5
1
4
4
2
11
15
8
5
PetroChina Company Ltd (China)
1
2
5
14
16
11
8
Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corp (Japan)
3
2
11
15
10
11
3
PRAD Research and Development Ltd (Virgin Islands, British)
1
4
5
9
6
15
3
10
INPEX Corp (Japan)
2
11
14
10
10
3
Japan Petroleum Exploration Co. Ltd (Japan)
2
11
14
10
10
3
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. (United States)
3
2
7
2
6
7
1
4
4
4
2
2
Japan Energy Corp (Japan)
5
1
3
10
3
6
10
4
3
M-I L.L.C. (United States)
1
2
2
2
1
5
7
6
2
3
3
5
1
Petroleum Energy Center (Japan)
5
1
3
4
6
6
4
1
3
5
China University Of Petroleum (China)
1
3
6
5
3
6
3
2
Catalysts & Chemicals Industries Co. Ltd (Japan)
3
8
2
3
6
3
2
1
Curtis, Philip Anthony (United Kingdom)
2
6
6
3
2
8
3
1
National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (Japan)
3
4
3
2
5
3
1
2
1
1
1
ZH Sekiyu Sangyo Kasseika Centre (Japan)
3
3
4
4
2
1
4
4
IFP Energies nouvelles (France)
1
5
1
5
7
4
Figure 4 is a filing timeline of top applicants, linking applicants to the year of filing with a blue square.
Figure 5 shows the priority country shares for the top applicants. This shows a strong bias for companies to file in their own countries first. This is true for the three Chinese companies, the 12 Japanese companies and the one French company. Royal Dutch Shell tends to split its priority filings between the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the EPO. Of the six American companies in the top 25, two have all of their priorities in the USA, while the other four have 90% in the USA and 10% in other countries, including Canada in two cases. This may reflect strategic filing on the part of these firms, who recognize the importance of filing for certain types of technologies in the same countries where their competitors are filing first. With respect to patent portfolio size (number of patent families per applicant), the data shows that 95% of applicants have five or fewer patent families, and 73% have only one. This suggests that there are not very many well-established applicants in the dataset. Alternatively, we can say that the research and development part of the industry is quite competitive, with lots of small firms competing at the innovation frontier.
Figure 5: Priority country shares for top applicants
Description of Figure 5
Figure 5: Priority country shares for top applicants
Assignee/Applicant
China
United States
Japan
European Patent Office (EPO)
Canada
Australia
World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO)
United Kingdom
France
China Petroleum & Chemical Corp (China)
369
JX Nippon Oil & Energy Corp (Japan)
209
Exxon Mobil Corp (United States)
131
3
2
3
Halliburton Energy Services Inc. (United States)
128
10
Schlumberger Ltd (United States)
2
85
3
3
4
Cosmo Oil Co. Ltd (Japan)
81
Idemitsu Kosan Co. Ltd (Japan)
74
Royal Dutch Shell plc (Netherlands)
34
31
2
6
Baker Hughes Inc. (United States)
62
Nippon Steel Engineering Co. Ltd (Japan)
59
PetroChina Company Ltd (China)
57
Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corp (Japan)
54
PRAD Research and Development Ltd (Virgin Islands, British)
47
3
INPEX Corp (Japan)
50
Japan Petroleum Exploration Co. Ltd (Japan)
50
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. (United States)
44
Japan Energy Corp (Japan)
45
M-I L.L.C. (United States)
37
2
Petroleum Energy Center (Japan)
39
China University Of Petroleum (China)
29
Catalysts & Chemicals Industries Co. Ltd (Japan)
28
Curtis, Philip Anthony (United Kingdom)
26
National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (Japan)
26
ZH Sekiyu Sangyo Kasseika Centre (Japan)
26
IFP Energies Nouvelles (France)
2
22
Figure 5 shows the priority country shares for the top applicants. The image shows bars with different colors representing the percentage shares for top applicants. Dark red represents China, orange represents the United States, sky blue represents Japan, purple represents EPO, green represents Canada, dark blue represents Australia, dark grey represents WIPO, yellow represents Great Britain and bright red represents France.
The Figure 6 map shows that the highest concentration of patents in this dataset relates to patents comprising keywords such as “coking coal, fat coal, lean coal,” “coke hydrocracking tower,” “huiles réacteur catalyseur,” and “drilling well formulation.” The water separating the islands highlights technological areas of patenting activity that are very different from each other. A clear distinction can be made between islands involving patents related to the development and production of shale oil and gas and patents tied to exploration.
The patent landscape map in Figure 7 highlights the top seven applicants in the data set and shows the different areas of the shale oil and gas sub-sector in which they operate. For example, Sinopec is very active in the areas of “catalytic zeolite coke” and active in a number of other areas, as indicated by the red dots in the lower right hand quadrant and center left hand quadrant of the map. Areas where firms overlap can be indicative of intense competition or collaboration.
When we compare to the previous landscape map, we see that the American firms Schlumberger Ltd and Haliburton are patenting more actively in exploration technologies, whereas the Chinese, Japanese and Dutch firms are patenting more actively in development and production technologies.
Figure 8 is a collaboration map showing collaborations involving the Chinese company Sinopec. Each dot on the collaboration map represents a patent family, and two applicants are linked together if they are named as joint applicants on a patent application. Sinopec collaborates primarily with other Chinese companies. Due to data limitations, some of the collaborations may include divisions of parent companies as well as subsidiaries.
Figure 9 is a collaboration map showing collaborations involving JX Nippon Oil and Energy Corporation. JX Nippon is actively collaborating with many other Japanese companies, who are themselves collaborating with others. It is a much more complex collaboration web than that of Sinopec. This may be reflective of different approaches to R&D by the companies or perhaps of the innovation policies of the countries.
Figure 10 is a collaboration map showing collaborations involving Schlumberger Limited. It is the most extensive collaborator of the top American companies. This may be due to the company's structure with respect to subsidiaries and their patenting and R&D strategy. PRAD Research and Development is based in the British Virgin Islands, but most of its work appears to be for American companies.
Figure 11 shows the top 20 inventors within the shale oil and gas industry sub-sector. As expected, most of the top inventors work for the top 10 patent filing applicants and are from China, Japan or the USA.
Figure 11: Top 20 inventors worldwide
Description of Figure 11
Figure 11: Top 20 inventors worldwide
Inventor
Number of Records
Xie, Chaogang (China)
39
Long, Jun (China)
37
Zhang, Zhigang (China)
35
Vinegar, Harold (United States)
34
Xu, You-hao (China)
32
Wang, Xie-qing (China)
31
Zhang, Jiu-shun (China)
31
Kaminsky, Robert D. (United States)
28
Liu, Tao (China)
27
Wang, Zi-jun (China)
27
Wu, Qi-cheng (China)
26
Cui, Shou-ye (China)
25
Iki, Hideshi (Japan)
24
Iki, Suguru (Japan)
24
Tanaka, Yuichi (Japan)
24
Hayasaka, Kazuaki (Japan)
23
Karanikas, John Michael (United States)
23
Patten, James W. (United States)
23
Gong, Jian-hong (China)
22
Chen, Peng (China)
21
Figure 11 shows a bar chart for the top 20 inventors as well as their country location within the Shale Oil and Gas industry sub-sector.