Origins, Causes and Typology of Disputes in Petroleum Contracts

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 PhD candidate, Petroleum Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Iran

2 , Assistant Professor of Energy and Petroleum Law, Petroleum University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

10.29252/jlr.2021.221413.1891

Abstract

The adverse impacts of disputes on performance and economic of petroleum projects as well as the social costs of disputes for the parties necessitate the application of dispute avoidance strategies in petroleum contracts. In this regard, understanding the origins and causes of disputes is of great importance. Studying the disputes arisen out of petroleum contracts identifies that the disputes originate from the nature of petroleum contracts as an Economic Development Agreement (EDA); special features of these contracts or the industry, such as: uncertainties inherent in the exploration, development and production of oil and gas, vast area of the projects, social and political sensitivities toward petroleum industry specially in the oil producing countries, and the multiplicity of the contributors of petroleum contracts. Hence, concentrating on the constituent elements of contracts, disputes are attributed to either the subject matter of a contract or the specific nature of the parties to a contract.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. BOOKs:

    1. Anderson,O, John S. Lowe, et al, International Petroleum Transactions, 3rd Ed, USA, RMMLF, 2010.
    2. BP p.l.c., Statistical Review of World Energy 2020, 69th ed, London, 2020.
    3. Dolzer,R, Petroleum Contracts and International Law, Oxford University Press, 2018.
    4. Lowe,J, Bruce M. Kramer, et al, Cases and Materials on Oil and Gas Law, 5th Ed, Thomson West, 2010.
    5. McNair, The Law of Treaties, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1961
    6. Palmer,B, Getting the Deal Through: Oil Regulation 2017, London, Law Business Research Ltd, 2017.
    7. Rubins,N, N.S Kinsella, International Investment, Political Risks and Dispute Resolution, Oceana Publication, 2005.
    8. Sornarajah,M., International Commercial Arbitration: The Problem of State Contracts, Singapore, Longman Singapore Publishers: 1990,
    9. M, The International Law on Foreign Investment, 2nd Ed, New York, Cambridge University Press, 2004.
    10. Yergin,D., The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1991.

     

    Articles:

    1. Bowman,J.P., "Risk Mitigation in International Petroleum Contracts", 50 GEO. J.INT'l L. 745, 2019.
    2. Dzienkowski,J. and Ernest E. Smith, "A Fifty-Year Perspective on World Petroleum Agreements", University of Texas at Austin School of Law Publications, 1989.
    3. Eden,L, et al. "From the Obsolescing Bargain to the Political Bargaining Model", Eden-Lenway-Schuler-AIB-2004.
    4. Fabrikant,R, "Production Sharing Contracts in the Indonesian Petroleum Industry", 16 HARV. INT'L L.J. 303, 1975
    5. Firoozmand,M, Warden-Fernandez, J, Introduction, 23(4) J. Energy & Nat. Resources L. 385, 2005.
    6. Firoozmand,MR and Javad Zamani, "Force Majeure in International Contracts: Current Trends and How International Arbitration Practice Is Responding", Arbitration International, 2017.
    7. Fogarassy,T and KayLynn, Litton, "Consultation with Aboriginal Peoples: Impacts on the Petroleum Industry", 42(1) Alta. L. Rev. 41, 2004.
    8. Hennessy,M., "Transnational Companies, Indigenous Peoples and International Law: An Equadorian Case Study", 2 Galway Student L. Rev. 84, 2003.
    9. Hyde,J.N., "Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Wealth and Resources", 50 A.J.I.L. 854,
    10. JSTOR, "Arbitral Tribunal: Award in Dispute between Libyan American Oil Company (LIAMCO) and the Government of the Libyan Arab Republic Relating to Petroleum Concessions", International Legal Materials, vol. 20, no. 1, 1981.
    11. Konarski,H,, "Force Majeure and Hardship Clauses in International Contractual Practice", No 4 of 2003 Int’l Bus. L. J. ,2003
    12. McNair, "the General Principles of Law Recognized by Civilized Nations", 33 BRIT. Y.B. INT'L L. 1, 1957.
    13. Miranda,L., "The U'Wa and Occidental Petroleum: Searching for Corporate Accountability in Violations of Indigenous Land Rights", 31 AM. INDIAN L. REV. 651, 2007.
    14. Moran, T., "Political and Regulatory Risk in Infrastructure Investment in Developing Countries: Introduction and Overview", Paper presented at “Private Infrastructure for Development: Confronting Political and Regulatory Risks, Sept. 8-10, 1999.
    15. Sieck,D., "Confronting the Obsolescing Bargain: Transacting around Political Risk in Developing and Transitioning Economies through Renewable Energy Foreign Direct Investment." Suffolk Transnational Law Review, vol. 33, no. 2, Summer 2010.
    16. Sharp, J, "Jordan: Background and U.S. Relations. Congressional research service", RL 33546, December 4, 2019.
    17. Smith,E., "From Concession to Service Contracts", Tulsa Law Review, Volume 27, 1992.
    18. Witten,E., "Arbitration of Venezuelan Oil Contracts: A Losing Strategy?", 4 Tex. J. Oil Gas & Energy L.,
    19. Weiss,S, "International Business Negotiation in Globalizing World: Reflections on the contributions and Future of a (Sub) Field", 11 Int’l Negotiation 287, 2006.
    20. Wokoro,J., "Beyond Petroleum Production to Community Development: International OilCompanies as Proxy Governments, 5(2) Tex. J. Oil Gas & Energy L. 323, 2009.

     

     

    Websites:

    1. Chevron Corporation, Promoting Peace in Niger Delta, June 2014 available at: https://www.chevron.com/stories/peace-in-niger
    2. David Reynolds, Clyde & Co., London and Lesley Gray, Paull & Williamsons, Edinburgh, Piper Alpha - The House of Lords' landmark decision, GardNews, 01 Aug 2002, available at: http://www.gard.no/web/updates/content/53315/piper-alpha-the-house-of-lords-landmark-decision
    3. Deepwater Horizon –BP Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill, United States Environmental Protection Agency, last updated on December 4, 2020, available at: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/deepwater-horizon-bp-gulf-mexico-oil-spill
    4. Friends of the Earth International, A journey through the oil spills of Ogoniland, 17 May, 2019, available at: https://www.foei.org/news/oil-spills-ogoniland-nigeria-shell
    5. Joffre, TZVI, "Jordan’s Constitutional Court Rules Gas Deal with Israel can’t be ended, Jerusalem Post, Middle East, May 13, 2020, available at: https://english.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/2020/5/13/jordanian-court-rules-against-cancelling-gas-deal-with-israel
    6. Meiners, John, Ten Years Later, BP Oil Spill Continues to Harm Wildlife, National Geographic, April 17, 2020, available at: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/how-is-wildlife-doing-now--ten-years-after-the-deepwater-horizon
    7. NASA Safety Center, "system failure case study, The case for safety: the north see piper alpha disaster, volume 7, issue 4, May 2013, Available at: https://sma.nasa.gov/docs/default-source/safety-essages/safetymessage-2013-05-06- pdf?sfvrsn=3daf1ef8_6
    8. The Wall Street Jornal, Oil Barrel Break down, WSJ News, 2016, available at: http://graphics.wsj.com/oil-barrel-breakdown/ .31/may 2020

     

    Cases:

    1. Aquinda v. Texaco, Inc., 945 F. Supp. 625 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)
    2. Aquinda v. Texaco Inc., 303 F.3d 470 (S.C. 2002)
    3. Beanal v. Freeport-McMoran, Inc, 969 F. Supp. 362 (1997).
    4. BP Exploration v. Libyan Arab Republic, 53 ILR 297 (1973)
    5. Cliffton v. Koontz, 325 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.1959)
    6. Exxon Research and Engineering Company v. NIOC, et el, IUSCT Case No. 155
    7. Houston Contracting Co. v. NIOC, et el, IUSCT Case No. 173
    8. Hulley Enterprises Ltd v. The Russian Federation, PCA Case No. 2005-03/AA226
    9. Hunt v. Coastal States Gas Prod. Co, 583 S.W. 322 (Tex,1979)
    10. Ioannis Kardassopoulos v. The Republic of Georgia, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/18.
    11. John Doe I, et al. v. Unocal, 963 F. Supp. 880 (C.D. Cal. 1997)
    12. Jota v. Texaco, Inc., 157 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 1998)
    13. Kuwait v. The American Independent Oil Company, 21 ILM 9 (1982)
    14. LIAMCO v. The Government of the Libyan Arab Republic, 20 ILM 1(1981) at 29
    15. Libananco Holdings Co. Ltd v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/8.
    16. Liman Caspian Oil BV et, el. v. Republic of Kazakhstan, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/14
    17. Mamidoil Jetoil Greek Petroleum Products S.A. v. Republic of Albania, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/24
    18. Mobil Oil Iran Inc. et el, v. Government of Iran (IR), et el., IUSCT Case No. 74
    19. National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma v. Unocal, Inc., 176 F.R.D. 329 (C.D. Cal. 1997).
    20. PanAmericanPetroleum Corp. v. Shell Oil Co., 455P.2d 12 (Alaska,1969)
    21. Parsons & Whittemore Overseas Co. v. Societe Generale de L'Industrie du Papier (RAKTA), 508 F.2d 969 (2d Cir. 1974)
    22. Phillips Petroleum Co. Iran v. The Islamic Republic of Iran, IUSCT Case No. 39
    23. Petrobart Limited v. The Kyrgyz Republic, SCC Case No. 126/2003.
    24. Petroleum Development Ltd. v. The Sheikh of Abu Dhabi, 18 ILR 144 (1951)
    25. Reliance Group, Inc v. Oil Service Company of Iran, et el, IUSCT Case No. 115
    26. Ruler of Qatar v International Marine Oil Company Ltd, 20 ILR 534 (1953)
    27. Sapphire International Petroleum v. National Iranian Oil Co., 35 ILR 136 (1963)
    28. Saudi Arabia v. Arabian American Oil Company (ARAMCO), 27 ILR 117 (1958)
    29. Sequihua v. Texaco, Inc 945 F. Supp. 61 (S.D. Tex. 1994)
    30. Social and Economic Rights Action Center & the Center for Economic and Social Rights v. Nigeria, Communication No. 155/96
    31. The Bodo Community and Others v. Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd TCC 4-Jul-2014, ([2014] EWHC 2170 (TCC))
    32. Texaco Overseas Petroleum Company v. The Government of the Libyan Arab Republic, 53 I.L.M. 389 (1979)
    33. Transport Oil Co. v. Exeter Oil Co. ltd, 84 Cal. App.2d 616, 191 P.2d 129
    34. United Central Oil Corporation V. Helm, 5 Cir., 11 F.2d 760, certiorari denied 271 U.S. 686
    35. Vance V. Hurley, 215 la. 805, 41 So.12 724 (1949)
    36. Veteran Petroleum Trust (Cyprus) v. Russian Federation, PCA Case No. AA 228
    37. Wiwa v. Royall Dutch Petroleum Company and Shell Transport Ltd, 96 Civ. 8386 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).
    38. Yanomami The Government of Brazil, 7615, IACHR 24, OSA/Ser.L/V/11.66, doc. 10 rev. 1 (1985).
    39. Yukos Universal Limited v. The Russian Federation, PCA Case No. 2005-04/AA227

     

     

Legal Research Quarterly
Volume 25, Issue 99 - Serial Number 99
December 2022
Pages 341-367

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 13 April 2021
  • Revise Date: 31 October 2021
  • Accept Date: 07 November 2021

Share

How to cite

Statistics