That's really interesting when you mention the liability issues, like earthquakes or water contamination. Reservoir engineering and simulation can help with that.

Absolutely. For CCS, we have to get a permit to store the CO2, just like you need a permit for oil and gas. Part of this permit is to demonstrate safety. In the Netherlands, for example, we have the Green Left, which is completely against anything that isn't green energy. They don't consider CO2 as green energy, even though it's needed for the next step. The government is worried because if they allocate taxpayer money to a subsidized project that the Green Left opposes, they need to ensure it's safe and thoroughly examined. We have to present our study based on the simulation we've done, showing there are no stability issues or earthquakes. We use simulation models to defend ourselves to the government.

As a user of both product suites, you've mentioned strengths in each area. There is some overlap where they can both perform the same functions. From your perspective, do reservoir engineers generally prefer one over the other, or is it like the debate between Apple and Android, where people are loyal to one ecosystem? Is it similar in this field, or is it different?

Most geologists use Petrel, which is a Schlumberger product. Petrel is the part before the simulator, where the geologist creates a model with layers representing the ground and how the channels flow. We, as reservoir engineers, then simulate the fluid flowing through it. This geologist part is almost always done in Petrel, and Petrel is a Schlumberger software. There's a more seamless integration between Petrel and Eclipse, which are both Schlumberger products, providing a better out-of-the-box experience.