Celebrating 20 Years of RESMAN: A Conversation with One of Our Founders
As RESMAN marks 20 years since its founding, we sat down with one of the company’s founders, Anne Dalager Dyrli. We reflected on how it all began, the early challenges, and the factors that shaped RESMAN into the global technology provider it is today.
Q: When you think back to the early days of RESMAN, what are you most proud of?
One of the biggest milestones, and something I’m still very proud of, was delivering our first pilot installation within just two years of founding the company. That was in 2007. At that point, there were only two of us working full-time, and we still managed to secure and execute a real offshore pilot project. That was critical in proving the concept.
The installation required significant effort - we had to reorganize the entire installation setup overnight to fit the system to the final well trajectory and zones. But even though we were a small team, we had significant key support from SINTEF, both for development and manufacturing of the tracer systems. The tracer systems we deployed were the largest ever installed in a well at the time. That success validated what we were trying to do and showed that it could be done.
Q: What inspired you to transition from R&D into commercialization?
I had been working in SINTEF for 13 years before RESMAN was founded. The technology originated as an internal R&D project as far back as 1999. Over time, we started to see that the concept could have real value in the oil and gas industry, which was lacking effective tools to understand inflow dynamics, particularly with water breakthrough and oil inflow.
When the opportunity came to spin the technology out and form a company, it wasn’t a difficult decision. We had done a lot of the experimental groundwork already, and we had some lab validation, so we really believed in the value of the technology. I was not familiar with the oil and gas industry at the time, but we had others on the team who brought in industry contacts. That made a big difference when it came to finding someone willing to support our first pilot.
Q: What were some of the major challenges in getting that pilot approved and executed?
The biggest hurdle was getting someone to agree to be first. Nobody wants to be the first to put untested technology into their well, especially when their job performance is tied directly to production rates and uptime. If something reduces flow or causes downtime, that’s a direct hit on their track record.
We had to prove that our technology wouldn’t interfere with production, wouldn’t block any equipment, and wouldn’t pose any health, safety, or environmental risks. And we had to do that without real-world results yet, which is always the challenge with first pilots. The fact that our technology had very low risk was key: it had no moving parts, no disruption to flow paths. We also had prior data from lab tests and experience with known tracer chemistries, which helped ease concerns.
Q: How important was the Norwegian ecosystem in helping RESMAN get off the ground?
The Norwegian ecosystem played a huge role. From partners in technology development, such as SINTEF, NTNU and IFE, to financial support from the government and oil companies and cooperation throughout the value chain for delivery projects.
We launched the pilot in Norway, even though offshore installations are more complex than onshore. But being close to the operators, service providers, and screen manufacturers we needed to work with made a big difference. The network and communication were smoother, and people were generally more open to testing new technology, provided the risk was well-managed.
That openness, combined with Norway’s strong collaboration culture between academia and industry, helped move things faster. Everyone, from the screen manufacturers to the rig crew, was interested in making it work, not just ticking boxes.
Q: What do you think helped RESMAN succeed in the longer term?
Several things stand out. First, the diverse backgrounds of the team from day one. We had people from chemistry, process engineering, oil and gas, and flow dynamics. It was that mix of expertise that allowed the idea to take shape in the first place. If we’d all had the same background, I don’t think the innovation would have happened.
Second, we invested heavily in R&D early on, and much of it has gone into developing and refining our technology. We kept most of our development projects in-house or with trusted partners like SINTEF and IFE. That gave us control over the pace and direction of innovation, and it allowed us to move faster than companies that were more fragmented or reliant on external funding. Also, continuous work with IPR was crucial.
Third, we started generating revenue relatively early, which meant we didn’t have to depend too much on external investment and funding. That’s rare. Most companies in this space require far more capital to reach that point.
Finally, I do believe that the type of investors, especially Statoil Technology Invest (now Equinor Ventures), was very important. Statoil, now Equinor, was a customer for most service providers and with an Oil company on the owner side, we got space and time to grow without being threatened by competitors.
Q: Was sustainability such an important part of the conversation back then, as it is today?
At that time, sustainability wasn’t a major decision-making factor. To my knowledge, the focus was entirely on risk to operations, and whether the technology could harm production or damage equipment. Of course, we had to meet environmental and safety standards, but those were framed more around risk mitigation than environmental performance or carbon impact.
What helped was that most of our tracer materials in the first installation were already known in the industry and had been used in other contexts. And our system didn’t interfere with production infrastructure—it just sat there and released tracers in a controlled way. So, in terms of health, safety, and environmental impact, we were able to demonstrate a low-risk profile very early.
Q: How important was collaboration across the ecosystem, then and now?
It was everything. Whether it was the screen manufacturers, offshore operators, or project leads, trust was essential. We were asking people to try something new, so relationships mattered. In Norway, that trust was easier to build because of personal and professional connections, often through prior research collaborations or shared networks.
I have not been directly involved in the oil and gas industry the last eight years, but I believe that principle still applies. Even now, the most effective form of marketing is word of mouth. When people move between companies, they bring those experiences with them. If someone has seen the technology deliver value in one project, they’ll vouch for it in the next. That kind of reputation is built on consistency and results, not just presentations.
