Why this matters (procurement POV) 

In oil and gas, lubrication problems rarely show up as the wrong grease. They show up as seized hardware, chronic relube cycles, unexpected corrosion, accelerated wear, repeat failures, and urgent buys. The fastest way procurement can improve uptime economics is to standardize a short, fit-for-service core list—matched to real operating conditions (heat, vibration, contamination, chemical exposure, and materials compatibility), not just a generic spec sheet. 

Most oil and gas corrosion and wear mysteries are selection and compatibility problems. You reduce repeat failures by standardizing a core list aligned to harsh-service conditions—using MOLYKOTE® specialty lubrication broadly for component-level reliability and using Krytox™ PFPE oils and greases selectively for extreme and high-consequence conditions where conventional lubricants break down and risk reduction justifies the premium. 

---

Myth vs. Reality 

Myth 1: “Grease is grease. Let’s standardize on one product.” 

Reality: One-product standardization is usually why you have repeat failures. 

Oil and gas assets do not fail politely. Heat, vibration, washdown, dust or water ingress, process exposure, and mixed materials (metals + elastomers + plastics) create failure modes that a one-grease-for-everything approach cannot cover. 

What procurement can do instead (better standardization): 

 

Myth 2: “If it meets the spec sheet, it will work in the field.” 

Reality: Field conditions win. Selection must start with service conditions. 

A spec sheet can be technically true and still be operationally wrong if it ignores contamination, water washout, chemical exposure, cycling, vibration, or real relube intervals. 

Use this conditions-first sourcing checklist before you standardize: 

 

Myth 3: “Compatibility is an engineering detail—procurement just buys to spec.” 

Reality: Compatibility is where sourcing decisions create or prevent failures. 

Compatibility misses often show up later as swelling, softening, cracking, leakage, premature wear, or corrosion that looks like a maintenance problem but is really a selection problem. 

Procurement’s practical role in compatibility control: 

 

Myth 4: “Corrosion is a coatings problem, not a lubricant problem.” 

Reality: Corrosion and lubrication are coupled in harsh service. 

In oil and gas, corrosion often accelerates wear and seizing—especially where moisture, contaminants, or process exposure are present. Lubrication selection impacts corrosion protection, washout resistance, and how quickly surfaces degrade under contamination. 

What to standardize for corrosion-prone areas: 

 

Myth 5: “Wear is just load. If the equipment is wearing, it’s mechanical.” 

Reality: Wear is frequently a lubrication fit problem (especially under cycling + contamination). 

If you see repeat bearing or actuator wear, short relube cycles, or chronic runs-rough-again patterns, you often have one or more of these causes: 

• Lubricant breaks down under temperature or cycling 
• Contamination overwhelms the lubricant’s protection 
• Wrong product for load or vibration regime 
• Compatibility issues accelerate friction and surface damage 

Procurement action that can reduce wear-driven churn: 

• Classify assets into “general harsh service” vs “extreme or high consequence” 
• Standardize a core list accordingly; don’t force one product to do two jobs 

Myth 6: “Premium lubricants are always a cost problem.” 

Reality: In high-consequence assets, unit price is rarely the decision driver. 

When downtime, safety risk, environmental exposure, or repeat work orders dominate the economics, the right question is: “What reduces repeat maintenance interventions and stabilizes performance under harsh conditions?” 

Put simply, many times the high upfront cost of some greases decreases the total cost of ownership, which is really what matters in the long run, especially as operating budgets are being squeezed. 

---

Common oil and gas failure modes that this standardization approach helps prevent 

• Corrosion-driven seizure or sticking that creates repeat work orders 
• Accelerated wear from lubricant breakdown under heat, load, and cycling 
• Washout or contamination issues (water, dust, or process ingress) causing short relube intervals 
• Materials compatibility issues (elastomer, plastic, or metal interactions) leading to leakage, swelling, cracking, or mystery failures 
• Procurement-driven delays from PFAS diligence when documentation is not queued upfront 
• Practical standardization: a procurement-ready core-list method 

 

Use a two-tier standard instead of one grease 

Tier 1: Core harsh-service standard 

• Covers the majority of site components and conditions 
• Clearly defined allowed-use conditions and materials guidance 
• Default choice for routine maintenance 

Tier 2: Extreme and high-consequence exceptions 

• Reserved for conditions where risk reduction and performance justify the premium 
• Requires a short fit check (asset + conditions + materials) before adding or approving 
• Governance tip (simple but effective): if an asset causes repeat failures, it automatically qualifies for Tier 2 review 

---

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) 

Q1: Is it ever a good idea to use one grease for the whole site? 

A single-product approach usually increases repeat failures because it cannot cover the range of temperature, contamination, chemical exposure, and materials compatibility found across oil and gas assets. A small core list is a better standardization model. 

Q2: What should procurement ask for to avoid compatibility problems? 

At minimum, procurement should ask for operating conditions (temperature, contamination, chemical exposure), component materials (including seal or elastomer type), failure symptoms, and desired relube interval. If materials are unknown, route to a short fit check before purchase. 

Q3: When does Krytox™ PFPE make sense versus a conventional or specialty grease? 

Krytox™ PFPE is ideal when the environment is extreme (temperature, reactive gas/oxygen service, demanding chemical exposure) and the failure consequence is high enough that risk reduction outweighs unit price. 
 

---

Contact ChemPoint Today 

ChemPoint is your one-stop solution for all your lubrication needs.  Our dedicated and technical team will be able to answer any questions you have quickly, usually within two hours, and get you the solution to your problems today. We welcome you to call us directly or fill out the request form on this page. 

We look forward to working with you!