Environmental Protection in Enhanced Oil Recovery and Its Waste and Effluents Treatment: A Critical Patent-Based Review of BRICS and Non-BRICS (2004–2023)

Abstract

Oil production will remain essential in the coming decades, requiring environmental responsibilities that are aligned with Agenda 2030. Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) increases recovery efficiency with low investment, but environmental protection technologies (EOR and Env), including green EOR (GEOR) and waste treatment (WT), must be integrated. The BRICS association, representing half of global oil production, promotes technology transfer in this context. Worldwide patent data (2004–2023) of EOR and Env technologies at TRL 4–5 in BRICS and non-BRICS countries were compared for nine GEOR (1489 patents) and nine WT (2292 patents) methods. China is the global leader (73%, being 98% of BRICS patents), maintaining dominance even when normalized by GDP. Non-BRICS patents are from the USA (41%), Japan (31%), and the Republic of Korea (14%). BRICS countries surpassed non-BRICS in 2014, with a 5.9% growth rate, −13.2% for non-BRICS, with all methods growing, whereas in non-BRICS, only water flocculation treatment is growing. BRICS technological specialization is expanding more rapidly than that of non-BRICS countries. BRICS countries exhibit higher relative technological advantages and distance in surfactants, polymers, macromolecules, sludge treatment, and multistage water treatment devices. Non-BRICS countries are more competitive in in situ combustion, water alternating gas (WAG), re-pressurization, vacuum techniques, flotation, water–oil separation, sorption, or precipitation, flocculation, and oil-contaminated water. China is the primary BRICS leader and is positioned to define BRICS policies regarding technology transfer and innovation. Technological partnerships between BRICS and non-BRICS countries are strongly recommended to enhance synergy and achieve sustainable and efficient production more rapidly.

1. Introduction

The greatest current challenge for humanity is to ensure that all countries are advancing in the sixth technological wave of sustainability [1], achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations (UN) Agenda 2030 [2,3].

To maintain the level of social well-being already attained and ensure quality of life on planet Earth, which is our home [4,5], it is essential to guarantee energy sufficiency throughout the remainder of the century.

Oil will remain the primary energy source in the coming decades [6], and the revenues generated from its commercialization will be essential for financing renewable energy development [7,8,9].

Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) enables the production of petroleum reserves that cannot be extracted using conventional techniques, increasing the recovery factor by up to 30–60% [10,11]. However, not all EOR methods ensure environmental protection. EOR associated with environmental technologies (EOR and Env) can be categorized into two main areas: Green EOR (GEOR) and waste and effluent (water, sludge, solids, etc.) treatment associated with EOR processes (WT).

Recently, the acronym GEOR [12] has been used to refer to environmentally friendly (green) EOR methods. However, beyond merely classifying methods as green, it is essential that the term GEOR applies to EOR processes that clearly associate oil production with technologies that protect the environment. This includes, for example, reducing surfactant and salt concentrations to levels acceptable for life on land (SGD15) and life below water (SDG14) [3].

WT includes various treatments for water, waste, sludge, and solids associated with EOR processes, spanning from the establishment of new operations to the enhancement of oil recovery in wells and reservoirs, as well as the treatment of produced fluids and solids [13,14,15].

To effectively plan for the future in alignment with the sixth wave of sustainability, it is essential to map technologies currently being developed at intermediate readiness levels. Prioritizing EOR and Env technologies will enable the maintenance of current oil production levels while significantly reducing environmental impacts.

The United Nations has facilitated agreements among countries on international environmental regulations and standards, particularly concerning deepwater exploration, seabed mining, and platforms for energy production and aquaculture [16,17,18].

Recently, the semi-informal association of emerging economies known as BRICS has been actively collaborating and currently accounts for approximately half of global oil production [19,20]. One of the most significant aspects for EOR and Env technology development and the Agenda 2030 is BRICS’ potential for technological transfer partnerships (SDG 17) [21] and the financing of green ventures (SDG 7) [22,23].

Indeed, BRICS countries are engaged in intense coordination efforts, sharing experiences, establishing the BRICS 2025 Portal for integrated communication strategies, and identifying partnerships to improve living conditions. This has led several countries to either join as partner states or apply for full membership [24,25].

However, both BRICS and non-BRICS nations face similar technological challenges, as the distribution of reservoir types and petroleum resources is determined by geological processes dating back to the fragmentation of Pangea and subsequent events [26]. Additionally, oil exploration has fostered partnerships among companies from various countries operating transnationally, as exemplified by Brazil’s pre-salt development [27].

Furthermore, multiple nations have signed the Patent Cooperation Treaty [28], establishing international regulations for the patenting and use of proprietary assets, which has resulted in highly similar domestic intellectual property laws across these countries.

Patents are a traditional indicator for assessing technology readiness levels (TRLs), particularly at levels 4–5 [29]. Their use, in combination with composite indicators, has been recommended and guided by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) as it enables the comparison of output indicators across different dimensions [30]. This approach has been applied to various fields, including food technology (SDG 2) [31] and biotechnology [32].

Recently, the TRL 4–5 levels of enhanced oil recovery (EOR) have been assessed using patent-based composite indicators for the period between 2002 and 2021. The results indicate that both BRICS and non-BRICS countries are self-sufficient in EOR, ensuring a responsible and low-impact energy transition [33]. However, the assessment of EOR and Env techniques during the same period revealed that only approximately 5% of EOR patents incorporated environmental protection technologies [34].

Therefore, it is crucial to assess the future potential of GEOR and WT in both BRICS and non-BRICS countries.

This article aims to provide insights into technological developments that enhance the sustainability of the oil industry concerning GEOR and WT.

To achieve this, patents from the worldwide Espacenet database were mapped using International Patent Classification (IPC) codes to identify the 18 main GEOR and WT methods over the past two decades that also include environmental protection IPCs. The study examines annual trends, country distributions, unexplored potential in relation to population and gross domestic product (GDP), the distribution of technological methods among BRICS and non-BRICS countries, growth rates, technological concentration, competitiveness, as well as temporal evolutions and emerging trends.

2. Materials and Methods

Patents were used as an output indicator of technological development, focusing on intermediate technological readiness levels TRL 4 and TRL 5.

To avoid duplicate counts of the same technological development due to filings in different countries for commercialization purposes, patent families were considered [35]. Hereafter, the term “patent” will refer to patent families.

To ensure the validity of this study, all patents were considered regardless of their legal status. This approach accounts for differences in patent processing times between filing and grant stages in national offices, such as those of the United States and Brazil [36], as well as variations in social behavior regarding the payment of patent maintenance fees.

The patent search followed internationally recognized criteria established by WIPO, utilizing the IPC system [37] to identify each GEOR and WT method, resulting in a total of 27 methods. The analysis considered patents as a whole, aiming to identify potential future technological pathways by assessing this TRL 4–5 metric. It did not filter for TRL 9 (full-scale implementation of patented technologies) or patents that have become technological standards.

Some methods were grouped to avoid those with few or no patents in certain years, which would reduce the reliability of temporal evolution calculations by requiring data imputation [30]. Additionally, methods that typically involve multiple IPC classifications were consolidated into the same group to prevent redundancies in technology analyses. A total of 18 methods were selected for study (Table S1 of Supplementary Material).

To identify patents focused on environmental preservation and remediation, IPCs from the Environmental Domain, as established by the WIPO Technology Domains and their IPC Technology Concordance [38], were mandatorily used. These were complemented by keyword searches with truncation characters (Table S1 of the Supplementary Material).

Four technological patent groups were defined:

• EOR—Patents classified under enhanced and improved oil recovery IPCs;
• EOR and Env—Patents from the EOR group that also contain IPCs from the WIPO Environmental Domain;
• GEOR—Patents from the EOR and Env group with green EOR IPCs;
• WT—Patents from the EOR and Env group with IPCs related to the treatment of water, waste, sludge, and solids in EOR processes.

To obtain the patents for each country, filings by their residents on the earliest priority date were used.

The annual number of patents from 2004 to 2023 was obtained from the worldwide database of the European Patent Office [39] through ORBIT Intelligence by Questel v.2.0.0 software, which covers over 100 countries [40] and offers robust search, analysis, and data export features [41]. Complete data for 2024 and 2025 could not be obtained due to the 18-month patent secrecy period. For temporal evolution analysis, data were grouped by biennia to avoid atypical years: B1 (2004–2005); B2 (2010–2011); B3 (2016–2017); and B4 (2022–2023).

For each method and technological group (EOR, EOR and Env, GEOR, and WT), the following datasets were created:

• BRICS—Patents from BRICS countries;
• Total—Total patents;
• Non-BRICS—Patents from non-BRICS countries, obtained by subtracting BRICS from Total.

Patent numbers per year were generated for the 18 methods.

Composite indicators were used to evaluate technological concentration (HH), technological specialization (CV), technological diversification (DIV), compound annual growth rate (CAGR), revealed technological advantage (RTA), and technological specialization distance (DIS). These were calculated using the following equations [31,32,33]:

$$HH=\sum _i^n{\left({\displaystyle \frac{N_i}{N}}\right)}^2$$

(1)

$$CV\left(HH\right)={\displaystyle \raisebox{1ex}{$\mathsf{\sigma }$}\!\left/ \!\raisebox{-1ex}{$\mathsf{\mu }$}\right.}$$

(2)

$$DIV={\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1}{HH}}{n}}$$

(3)

$$CAGR\left(t_0,t_n\right)=100\{{\left({\displaystyle \frac{P_{t_n}}{P_{t_0}}}\right)}^{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(t_n-t_0\right)}}}-1\}$$

(4)

$${RTA}_{i,{\displaystyle \frac{j_1}{j_2}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\frac{P_{i,j_1}}{\sum P_{j_1}}}{\frac{P_{i,j_2}}{\sum P_{j_2}}}}$$

(5)

$${DIS}_{i,{\displaystyle \frac{j_1}{j_2}}}={\displaystyle \frac{P_{i,j_1}}{\sum P_{j_1}}}-{\displaystyle \frac{P_{i,j_2}}{\sum P_{j_2}}}$$

(6)

where $HH$ is the Herfindahl—Hirschman Concentration Index, $i$ are the technological methods ($i=1,\dots ,n$), $N_i$ is the number of patents in a given technological method $i$, $\sum _i^n{N}_i$ is the sum of the number of patents in each food technology method, $CV$ is the technological specialization, $\sigma$ is the $HH$ standard deviation, $\mu$ is the $HH$ average, $DIV$ is the technological diversification, $t_0$ is the start time, $t_n$ is the end time, $P_{t_0}$ is the number of patents at the start time, $P_{t_n}$ is the number of patents at the end time $t_n$, $RTA$ is the revealed technological advantage, $DIS$ is the distance of technological specialization, $j$ is the dataset ($j$ = BRICS, non-BRICS), and $P_{1,j}$ is the percentage of patents in the set of data $j$ in the technologic method $i$.

The meanings of the HH (Equation (1)), CV (Equation (2)), and DIV (Equation (3)) indicators are the same, with the latter being the inverse of the first two. All three were calculated to enhance the reliability of the information, avoiding mathematical artifacts.

The CAGR (Equation (4)) was calculated not only for patents but also for patents normalized by output indicators for each country, which were obtained from the World Bank Development Indicators in January 2025: total population and GDP in current USA dollars.

RTA (Equation (5)) is a ratio calculation that yields the same result for both large and small number ratios. DIS (Equation (6)) is a calculation of differences, yielding the same result when comparing between large numbers or between small numbers. Therefore, both should be considered together to avoid their intrinsic mathematical artifacts. As such, the analysis of these two composite indicators was performed together in graphical form.

For comparative purposes and normalization between countries of different sizes, the number of indexed articles was obtained using keywords and truncation characters from the Scopus and Clarivate Analytics databases in January 2025 (Table S1 of Supplementary Material).

All data were downloaded into spreadsheets and processed by the authors, who calculated the indicators and created the figures.

3. Results and Discussion

The percentage distribution of patents for each method of EOR and Env, from 2004 to 2023, can be seen in

Table 1. Percentage distribution of EOR and Env patents for each GEOR and WT method from 2004 to 2023, among BRICS and non-BRICS.

EOR and Env Method	Patents (TRL4–5) (%)
	BRICS	Non-BRICS
GEOR—(Polymers OR macro compounds) and Surfactants	1.7	1.8
GEOR—Combustion in situ	3.8	7.5
GEOR—Fracturing, fracture reinforcement, interconnecting wells	1.2	2.2
GEOR—Heat and steam	14.2	20.0
GEOR—MEOR (microbial enhanced oil recovery)	0.6	1.0
GEOR—Polymers and macromolecular compounds	7.4	7.6
GEOR—Repressuring or Vacuum	1.4	3.1
GEOR—Surfactants	3.6	3.7
GEOR—WAG (Water Alternating Gas, combinations with injected gas)	0.4	1.5
WT—Flocculation or precipitation of suspended impurities	2.4	4.0
WT—Sludge treatment devices	7.6	2.2
WT—Solid waste disposal	4.5	4.1
WT—Sorption	1.9	4.0
WT—Water treatment	15.5	12.6
WT—Water treatment contaminated by oil	2.3	4.8
WT—Water–oil separation	1.2	2.2
WT—Flotation	17.2	16.4
WT—Water multistage treatment devices	13.1	1.4

(also refer to Table S2 in the Supplementary Material).

The global analysis of these two decades shows that most patents concentrated especially on three methods, highlighting technological challenges for both BRICS and non-BRICS. These challenges primarily focus on water treatment, in general, and the flotation process, as well as GEOR methods utilizing environmental protection technologies associated with heat and steam, the latter being particularly suited for heavy oils.

However, BRICS countries also strongly focused on the development of technologies for modular devices for water multistage treatment.

3.1. Technology Distribution Among BRICS and Non-BRICS

The cumulative annual distribution of patent filings originating from first-priority countries of BRICS and non-BRICS can be seen in Figure 1, for the two branches of EOR and Env, GEOR, and WT.

For GEOR (Figure 1a), it is observed that non-BRICS countries were more active until 2015, when the appropriation of this technology began to stagnate. In contrast, BRICS countries exhibited linear growth until around 2010, after which they experienced exponential growth, surpassing non-BRICS countries in 2016. The total percentage of patents over these 20 years is 35% for non-BRICS and 65% for BRICS.

For WT (Figure 1b), between 2004 and 2012, there was linear growth in patents with similar numbers for both BRICS and non-BRICS countries. From 2013 onwards, a divergence occurs, with continuous linear growth followed by stagnation for non-BRICS countries. In contrast, BRICS countries accelerated their technological development from 2013, showing an exponential growth pattern.

Quintella et al. [34] had previously reported that EOR and Env patents accounted for only 5% of total EOR patents. In this study, covering a later period, the percentages have increased, with 12% for GEOR. For WT, the percentage is even higher, at 88%, given the intrinsic nature of fluid processing. This result demonstrates the growing concern with the development of environmental protection and recovery technologies.

3.2. Science and Technology Distribution Among Countries

Figure 2 shows the percentage distributions between BRICS and non-BRICS countries for GEOR and WT technologies. In the case of BRICS, China dominates with 98% of GEOR technologies that combine EOR and environmental protection techniques in the same patent (Figure 2a), and 99% of that refers to WT (Figure 2c). In other words, within BRICS, the patent market is dominated by China, which could facilitate the transfer of these technologies, which are crucial for the group as a whole, in line with the BRICS Innovation Action Plan for technology transfer [21].

Among the non-BRICS, the leaders in GEOR (Figure 2b) are the USA (57%), Japan (16%), and Republic of Korea (11%), with the remaining 16% distributed among various countries. In WT (Figure 2d), Japan leads (43%), followed by the USA (35%), Republic of Korea (16%), France (4%), and Great Britain (2%).

When analyzing the countries globally with the highest patent filings in GEOR, China leads with 67%, followed by the USA (18%), Japan (5%), and France (1.7%). For WT, China extends its dominance with 79%, followed by Japan (9.0%), the USA (7.2%), and Republic of Korea (3.4%).

Thus, globally, China stands out with more than two-thirds of EOR and Env patents, followed by the USA, which holds only 18% of the technologies in this field. In other words, China leads in the environmentally friendly EOR technology domain. This may be a consequence of China’s increasing focus on environmental protection policies over the past decades, implementing regulations and enforcing environmental laws to protect air, water, and land from pollution and contamination. These efforts have included the establishment of the Ministry of Environmental Protection in 2008, among other initiatives [42,43,44,45,46].

However, when comparing patent production between countries, it is essential to remember that their production potentials differ, and it is important to normalize by other output indicators of each country.

Figure 3 shows, for each leading country, patents normalized by GDP versus articles normalized by population for EOR (Figure 3a) and EOR and Env (Figure 3b) technologies, with the latter encompassing both GEOR and WT.

It can be observed that for EOR technology alone (Figure 3a), Republic of Korea, Japan, China, and the Russian Federation lead in patents per GDP. However, for EOR and Env technologies (Figure 3b), there is a reversal, and China takes the lead in patents relative to its GDP, followed by the Republic of Korea and Japan.

In terms of the total percentage of patents (Figure 2c,d), when analyzed in relation to country output GDP, the USA drops from the leadership position among non-BRICS to fifth place (Figure 3b), demonstrating that, comparatively, it has untapped potential for growth if EOR and Env is prioritized, thereby increasing its effectiveness alongside non-BRICS countries like Republic of Korea and Japan.

It is also evident that, in terms of articles relative to population, Canada leads, highlighting its focus on producing more scientific knowledge than technological development. Canada leads in EOR (Figure 3a) and maintains its leadership in EOR and Env (Figure 3b), where it is closely followed by Malaysia and the United Kingdom in the latter. In the case of countries with a high number of articles relative to their population potential, this effect may also be attributed to researchers being encouraged to publish articles, as publications serve as key indicators for securing research grants.

3.3. Technological Methods Distribution Among BRICS and Non-BRICS

Figure 4 shows the distribution of patents for each technological field between BRICS and non-BRICS countries for GEOR and WT (see also Table S2 of Supplementary Material).

For WT (Figure 4b), BRICS, primarily China (Figure 2c), lead in all methods, particularly dominating technological development in multistage water treatment devices and sludge treatment devices. These technologies are essential for water reuse in compliance with, for example, national environmental regulations and international standards for deepwater exploration [16,17,18,47]. In the case of water treatment for oil contamination and separation, technological capacity is similar between BRICS and non-BRICS countries.

3.4. Growth Rates and Temporal Tendencies

The growth of technological development in EOR and Env, evaluated through CAGR (Equation (4)), over the 20-year period (2004–2023), can be seen in Figure 5 (see also Table S3 of Supplementary Material).

It can be observed that, when considering patents alone, both BRICS and non-BRICS exhibit positive CAGR. However, when analyzing against the potential of each country, normalizing patents by population or GDP, the trends are reversed, with positive growth for BRICS and negative growth for non-BRICS. Since the patents of BRICS are predominantly from China (Figure 2a,c), it can be observed that this country, in relation to its GDP, still has potential for growth. In the case of non-BRICS, the CAGR is negative when compared to population or GDP, indicating a significant growth potential in EOR and Env.

As this analysis pertains to a 20-year period, it is essential to observe the temporal growth trends of EOR and Env (Figure 6 and Table S3 of Supplementary Material).

It can be observed that for any of the indicators used to calculate CAGR, the pattern is similar, indicating synergies in patents, population, and GDP growth. The CAGR for both BRICS and non-BRICS is decreasing; however, the values for BRICS are consistently higher.

Between the first two periods, BRICS maintained a constant growth rate, while non-BRICS experienced a decline. Between the second and third periods, the growth rate for BRICS decreased and became slightly negative. On the other hand, non-BRICS are clearly slowing down their technological development of EOR and Environment methods in all periods. In the first period, they still had a positive rate, but in the third period, the growth rate is clearly negative (CAGR lower than −20).

This raises the following questions: Are the BRICS following the pattern of non-BRICS, and will they also experience a slowdown? Or is this deceleration a result of having already achieved technological maturity, reducing the need for further refinement of methods? To answer this, it will be necessary to analyze the developments in the coming years.

It becomes essential to analyze each EOR and Env method separately to understand these drops in CAGR.

3.5. Technological Methods Growth Rates

The evaluation of the growth rate of technological development for each GEOR and WT method can be seen in Figure 7.

For GEOR, it is clearly observed that the BRICS (Figure 7a), with patents primarily from China (Figure 2a), have a positive CAGR, confirming the pattern identified in previous periods [33,34] and increasing their growth rate, especially for in situ combustion and the use of polymers, macromolecules, and surfactants.

However, in GEOR, the non-BRICS (Figure 7c) exhibit zero or negative growth rates across all methods, confirming and worsening the pattern previously observed until 2021 [33,34]. Even methods that had positive, albeit low, CAGRs are now either stagnating, such as WAG, or experiencing declining growth rates, such as the usage of polymers, surfactants, and fracturing.

For WT, the positive growth rate of the BRICS (Figure 7b) is clearly maintained across all methods. However, the non-BRICS (Figure 7d) show mostly negative growth, with only flocculation or precipitation of suspended impurities exhibiting positive growth, and stabilization near zero CAGR for water multistage treatment devices and water treatment contaminated by oil.

Given these uneven growth patterns, it is important to analyze the technological specialization and competitiveness of both groups comparatively.

3.6. Technological Concentration and Competitivity

For EOR and Env, the composite indicators for BRICS and non-BRICS are quite similar when considering the 20 years analyzed, being, respectively: technological concentration (Equation (1)) of 0.109 and 0.106; specialization (Equation (2)) of 153% and 180%; and diversification (Equation (3)) of 0.54 and 0.56 (Table S4 of Supplementary Material). Thus, these indicators over the two decades only reveal that the BRICS are slightly less specialized and more unequal.

When analyzing the temporal evolution of EOR and Env between the four biennia (Figure 8), it is possible to observe a high degree of synchronization in technological development between the two groups, both showing an increase in technological concentration and specialization over the biennia, and a consequent decrease in technological diversification.

When analyzing GEOR and WT separately, similar patterns are found for HH, DIV, and CV. Only for GEOR is there a noticeable differentiation in the two intermediate biennia, where the BRICS exhibit lower specialization, which can be attributed to the technological race of the BRICS, primarily China (Figure 2a), to reach similar standards as the non-BRICS in the last biennium (Figure S1 of Supplementary Material).

When analyzing the revealed technological advantage (Equation (5)) for the two decades, comparing BRICS versus non-BRICS, the composite indicator exceeds unity (1.4), highlighting the advantage of the BRICS. For technological distance (Equation (6)), this leadership of the BRICS, particularly China (Figure 2a,c), becomes more evident (2.4) (Table S4 of Supplementary Material). This trend had been previously observed for earlier periods [34].

The analysis of the temporal evolution of technological advantages and distance for EOR and Env between BRICS and non-BRICS shows fluctuations, which can be explained by analyzing GEOR and WT separately (Figure 9).

For GEOR (Figure 9a), the RTA has remained essentially constant, with minor fluctuations over the biennia, around unity, showing no technological advantage for either group. However, the technological distance for the BRICS has remained greater, with a slight upward trend for future growth.

For WT (Figure 9b), there have been broad variations over time for both RTA and DIS, with similar patterns, and it is not yet possible to project their future behavior. The RTA started at 2.2, dropped to 1.3, followed by a pronounced increase to 3.4, and then dropped to 1.1, demonstrating a technical tie in the last biennium. The DIS fluctuated between 5 and 8, indicating a greater technological distance for the BRICS, primarily China (Figure 2c), compared to the non-BRICS. The final trends of decreasing RTA and DIS will need to be assessed in the future, as the increase between 2016 and 2017 suggests that stability has not yet been reached.

Figure 10 highlights the most competitive GEOR and WT methods for BRICS and non-BRICS during the two decades analyzed (for more details, see Figure S2 of the Supplementary Material).

For GEOR (Figure 10a), BRICS countries exhibit greater competitiveness, demonstrating a higher relative technological advantage in the use of formulations containing surfactants, polymers, and macromolecules. In contrast, non-BRICS countries hold a stronger position in the technological development of environmental protection methods related to water-alternating gas injection processes, reservoir re-pressurization, vacuum technologies, and in situ combustion.

In the case of WT technological development (Figure 10b), the BRICS are more competitive in sludge treatment devices and water multistage treatment devices. On the other hand, the non-BRICS countries are more competitive across a wider range of methods: flotation, water–oil separation, treatment of water contaminated by oil, sorption, and flocculation or precipitation of suspended impurities.

This result demonstrates a high degree of complementarity between BRICS and non-BRICS countries in the various GEOR and WT technologies, leading to the conclusion that partnerships would be essential to enhance synergy and accelerate the SDGs and the 2023 Agenda.

It is important to note that, as we are analyzing technological development at TRL 4–5, we are observing the efforts of countries to develop technologies with potential for use at TRL 9 in the coming years. In other words, we are examining output indicators of countries’ efforts in the path of producing oil with lower environmental impact. Despite all countries having environmental protection and patenting policies, both national and international agreements, BRICS, particularly China, have shown better performance.

4. Conclusions

This article, by mapping the intermediate TRL of BRICS and non-BRICS, clearly identifies two distinct approaches to the EOR and Env challenge: the BRICS, with accelerated development, and the non-BRICS, which appear stagnant and are treated as if they already possess mature technology. However, this is by no means a mature technology and it should be expanding due to the emergence of new technological forms, including processes controlled by artificial intelligence, nanotechnologies, advanced industrial biotechnologies, among others, that could be incorporated into the clean processes of GEOR and WT. Another explanation could be that non-BRICS countries may be opting for industrial secrecy instead of patenting, but this is highly unlikely due to the significant risks associated with widespread knowledge dissemination and the high level of integration through the Internet and the World Wide Web using information and communication technologies. In fact, it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain exclusive control over proprietary information, thus industrial secrecy is discouraged. Only future studies will be able to clarify this.

It also became clear that there is still idle technological development capacity in non-BRICS countries, as observed through their patent GDP ratio, which would allow public policies to prioritize this technological strand.

The technological specialization of BRICS shows a future growth trend, while non-BRICS have stabilized, which is causing the technological advantage and distance of BRICS to be larger than that of non-BRICS. For GEOR, stability has already been reached, mainly due to methods involving surfactants, polymers, and macromolecules, while non-BRICS are more competitive in combustion in situ, WAG, repressuring, and vacuum technologies. For WT, BRICS’ greater competitiveness is due to sludge treatment devices, whereas non-BRICS’ competitiveness is divided among flotation, water–oil separation, sorption, and flocculation.

This study was based on patents, focusing on technological development at TRL 4–5, assessing the future potential of technologies and the technological capabilities of BRICS and non-BRICS countries. However, as the TRL increases up to TRL 9 (product or process in the market), it will be essential to map the life cycle assessment, product environmental footprint, and material flow analysis, aiming for circular innovation, with a focus on maximizing cradle-to-cradle processes over cradle-to-grave processes [18,48,49,50,51].

China is the primary leader in technological development within the BRICS group, positioning itself to influence and define BRICS policies. Technological partnerships between BRICS and non-BRICS countries are highly recommended to improve synergy and achieve sustainable and efficient production more rapidly.