Oil and Gas
Providers using this tag (122)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Strong 1 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 5 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 6 Limited public surface area
Emerging 29 Early or largely undocumented
Arundo AnalyticsCollideRPCAndiumEnergy TransferAntero ResourcesAPADenbury ResourcesGlobal Partners LPWilliams CompaniesAegis Marine ShipmanagementEnterprise Products PartnersDCP Midstream PartnersEnergy RoboticsPerceptoSeekOpsWorkriseArchrockValero EnergyImubitViva EnergyKabalSouthwestern EnergyHalliburtonEQTBeyond LimitsOrbioSLB (Schlumberger)Corrosionradar
Minimal 80 Almost no public developer surface
SM EnergyAmbyintSantosProject CanaryWhiting PetroleumFMC Technologies (now TechnipFMC)Superior Energy ServicesNOVCabot Oil & GasKairos AerospaceProPetro HoldingWillbros GroupOptimotiveITTOccidental PetroleumOil States InternationalCimarex EnergyWorldOil.com, Inc./WellogixDelek US HoldingsGenesis EnergyINGUUpwing EnergyAvathonWoodside EnergyPlains All American PipelineKinder MorganTesoroBeach EnergyLiberty EnergyDevon EnergyProFrac HoldingRegency Energy PartnersCameron InternationalDiamondback EnergyContinental ResourcesRange ResourcesTotalEnergiesConocoPhillipsExxon MobilInterface FluidicsChampionXDresser-Rand Group4-Horn IndustrialOrbital InsightPhillips 66ChevronGlassPointHessPar Pacific HoldingsBarrelllithiumAdams Resources & EnergyHF SinclairHollyFrontierMarathon PetroleumPBF EnergySemGroupSpectra EnergyylhyoilCNX ResourcesPermian ResourcesWestern Midstream PartnersPatterson-UTI EnergyOvintivTarga ResourcesCivitas ResourcesDownstream EnergyTexacoTarga EnergyMurphy OilNoble EnergyMatador ResourcesNewfield ExplorationAltra Energy TechnologiesConcho ResourcesCoterra EnergyDCP MidstreamEP EnergyOasis PetroleumQEP ResourcesSeventy Seven Energy
Unrated 1 Not yet scored
APIs with this tag (7)
Ranked by the provider's API Evangelist rating — the Kin Score is scored per provider, not per API, so every API of a provider shares its band. How the rating works →
Developing 2 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 3 Limited public surface area
Baker Hughes BHC3 AI SuiteThe BHC3 AI Suite is a joint product from Baker Hughes and C3.ai providing pre-built, configurable AI appli...BSEE Data CenterThe BSEE Data Center provides online query services and data downloads for offshore oil and gas operations....Enverus DirectAccess APIToken-authenticated REST API (v2) for bulk programmatic access to Enverus' energy datasets — well origins, ...
Emerging 1 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 1 Almost no public developer surface
Score breakdown
Frequency
57.3
log-scaled weighted occurrences
Breadth
2.9
spread across providers
Quality lift
11.6
mean composite of providers using it
Cohesion
15.0
strength of nearest seed neighbor
Where this tag sits
122 providers carry this tag directly, and 145 counting the 9 narrower tags below — 23 more to reach.
Energy broader
Crude Oil
12 providers
Downstream
3 providers
Exploration and Production
12 providers
Midstream
22 providers
Oil
7 providers
Oilfield Services
11 providers
Permian Basin
9 providers
Petroleum
22 providers
Upstream
16 providers
Related tags
Natural Gas 35 co-occurrences
Upstream 16 co-occurrences
Energy 105 co-occurrences
Midstream 14 co-occurrences
Petroleum 12 co-occurrences
Oilfield Services 11 co-occurrences
Exploration and Production 11 co-occurrences
Refining 10 co-occurrences
Where this tag comes from
Provider tag123
Api tag7
Markets provisional
Kin Score markets whose measured providers carry this tag. Share is the fraction of the market's measured providers that carry it — it describes the market, not this tag.
| Market | Share of the market's providers |
|---|---|
| Energy Subsurface (oil & gas data standards, mining) | 55% |
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 103 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Oil and Gas, scored on the Kin Score. Every figure below is computed from the catalog — nothing here is written.
Providers
103
of 118 in the catalog
Mean Kin Score
even vs catalog
Mean Agent Readiness
5
-7 vs catalog 12
Spread
–
median · σ
How the 103 split by band
Exemplar 0Strong 2Developing 4Thin 4Emerging 29Minimal 64
Facet averages, against the whole catalog
| Facet | This cohort | Catalog | Difference | Scored |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contract Governance | 5.1 | 6.5 | -1.4 | 103 |
| Discoverability | 51 | 57.9 | -6.9 | 103 |
| Operational Transparency | 4.8 | 13 | -8.2 | 103 |
| Contract Quality | 5.7 | 17.2 | -11.5 | 103 |
| Access Clarity | 11.3 | 23.9 | -12.6 | 103 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 10.5 | 23.2 | -12.7 | 103 |
A facet is averaged over the members that carry it, not over the whole cohort — the “Scored” column is that count. Averaging an absent facet as zero would score our own coverage gaps as the providers’ posture.
What this cohort publishes
| Artifact | This cohort | Catalog | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MCP server (any) | 1% | 13% | -12 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 0% | 12% | -12 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 8% | 11% | -3 |
| Security | 98% | 98% | 0 |
| Arazzo workflows | 0% | 2% | -2 |
| Governance rules | 7% | 16% | -9 |
mcp_pct counts any mcp/ artifact including ones API Evangelist derived from the provider OpenAPI; mcp_first_party_pct counts only servers the provider publishes. Prefer the latter.
Top by Kin Score
- 1 Equinor
- 2 Corva AI
- 3 Shell
- 4 BP
- 5 Validere
- 6 Quorum Software
- 7 Helmerich & Payne
- 8 Innovapptive
- 9 Tachyus
- 10 Baker Hughes
Top by Agent Readiness
- 1 BP {"score" => 45.6, "band" => "agent-ready"}
- 2 Validere {"score" => 38.9, "band" => "agent-ready"}
- 3 Equinor {"score" => 32.5, "band" => "agent-ready"}
- 4 Corva AI {"score" => 32.4, "band" => "agent-ready"}
- 5 Helmerich & Payne {"score" => 30.6, "band" => "agent-ready"}
- 6 Andium {"score" => 27.2, "band" => "agent-aware"}
- 7 Tachyus {"score" => 26.7, "band" => "agent-aware"}
- 8 Shell {"score" => 25, "band" => "agent-aware"}
- 9 Quorum Software {"score" => 22.4, "band" => "agent-aware"}
- 10 Energy Transfer {"score" => 19.6, "band" => "agent-aware"}
All 118 members of this roster resolve to a provider in the
catalog; 103 carry a score (87%).
The figures above describe the scored members only.
Coverage caveat. 101 of 103 scored members had under half their catalog-attributable points satisfied at all (catalog_earned / catalog_max < 0.5). They are INCLUDED in the mean above. A large share here means the cohort mean is partly a measurement of how far our enrichment reached, not only of how these providers publish.Generated from the catalog build of 31 October 2026, across 31983 providers, using the same computation served by the APIs.io cohort API. Briefs are published for rosters of 5 or more scored providers; below that a distribution is not meaningful.
Coverage caveat. 101 of 103 scored members had under half their catalog-attributable points satisfied at all (catalog_earned / catalog_max < 0.5). They are INCLUDED in the mean above. A large share here means the cohort mean is partly a measurement of how far our enrichment reached, not only of how these providers publish.Generated from the catalog build of 31 October 2026, across 31983 providers, using the same computation served by the APIs.io cohort API. Briefs are published for rosters of 5 or more scored providers; below that a distribution is not meaningful.
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.