|Arbitration Rules||ICSID Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings (2006)|
|BIT or Treaty||Agreement on the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments between the Kingdom of Spain and the Arab Republic of Egypt, signed on 3 November 1992 and entered into force on 26 April 1994|
|BCM or bcm||Billion cubic meters|
|Bcma or bcma||Billion cubic meters per annum|
|CL-[#]||Claimant's Legal Authority|
|Cl Mem Merits||Claimant's Memorial on the Merits dated 7 August 2015|
|Cl CM Jur||Claimant's Counter-Memorial on Jurisdiction dated 13 June 2016|
|Cl Obj Bif||Claimant's Objection to Bifurcation dated 22 December 2015|
|Cl Rej Bif||Claimant's Rejoinder on Bifurcation dated 5 February 2016|
|Cl Rep Merits||Claimant's Reply Memorial on the Merits dated 7 October 2016|
|Cl Rej Jur||Claimant's Rejoinder on Jurisdiction and Admissibility dated 16 January 2017|
|ClSoC||Claimant's Statement of Costs dated 17 May 2017|
|COS||Claimant's Opening Statement|
|Damietta Plant||The gas liquefaction plant in Damietta, Egypt|
|EATCO||Egyptian Arab Trading Company|
|EGAS||Egyptian Natural Gas Holding Company|
|EGPC||Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation|
|ENPPI||Engineering for the Petroletun & Process Industries|
|ER#||First, Second, etc. Expert Report|
|GASCO||Egyptian Natural Gas Company|
|GNF||Gas Natural Fenosa|
|Hearing||Healing on Jurisdiction and the Merits held on 6 to 11 March 2017|
|IBA Rules||The IBA Rules on Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration (29 May 2010)|
|ICSID or the Centre||International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes|
|ICSID Convention||Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States dated 18 March 1965|
|ILC Articles||Articles on Responsibility of States for International Wrongful Acts of the International Law Commission|
|LNG||Liquefied Natural Gas|
|MBtu or MMBtu or MMBTU||Million British Thermal Units|
|RL-[#]||Respondent's Legal Authority|
|Resp CM Merits||Respondent's Counter-Memorial on the Merits dated 13 June 2016|
|Resp Obj Jur & Req for Bif||Respondent’s Memorial on Objections to Jurisdiction and Request for Bifurcation dated 25 November 2015|
|Resp Rej Merits||Respondent's Rejoinder on the Merits dated 16 January 2017|
|Resp Rep Bif||Respondent's Reply Memorial on Bifurcation dated 18 January 2016|
|Resp Rep Jur||Respondent's Reply Memorial on Objection to Jurisdiction and Admissibility dated 7 October 2016|
|Resp SoC||Respondent Statement of Costs dated 17 May 2017|
|RfA||Request for arbitration dated 14 February 2014|
|ROS||Respondent's Opening Statement|
|SEGAS||Spanish-Egyptian Gas Company S.A.E.|
|SPA||Natural Gas Sale and Purchase Agreement between Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation, as "Seller", and Unión Fenosa Desarrollo y Acción Exterior, S.A., as "Buyer", dated 1 August 2000|
|Tr. Day [#] [page]||Transcript of the Hearing - day and page|
|Tribunal||The Arbitral Tribunal constituted on 8 December 2014|
|Unión Fenosa||Unión Fenosa, S.A.|
|UFACEX||Unión Fenosa Desarrollo y Acción Exterior, S.A.|
|UFG or UFGas||Unión Fenosa Gas, S.A.|
|UFGC||Unión Fenosa Gas Comercializadora, S.A.|
|UFI (previously UFACEX)||Unión Fenosa Internacional, S.A.|
|WS#||First, Second, etc. Witness Statement|
|Short Name||Full Name||Exhibit Number|
|AAPL v. Sri Lanka||Asian Agricultural Products Limited v. Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID Case No. ARB/87/3), Award. 27 June 1990||CL-0098|
|Accession v. Hungary||Accession Mezzanine Capital L.P. and Danubius Kereskedohaz Vagyonkezelo Zrt. v. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/3. Decision on Respondent’s Notice of Jurisdictional Objections and Request for Bifurcation, 8 August 2013||RL-0052|
|ADC v. Hungary||ADC Affiliate Limited and ADC &ADMC Management Limited v. The Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/16, Award. 2 October 2006||CL-0095|
|Alex Genin v. Estonia||Alex Genin, E. Credit Limited, Inc. and A.S Baltoil v. The Republic of Estonia, ICSID Case No. ARB/99/2, Award. 25 June 2001||CL-0151|
|Alpha v. Ukraine||Alpha Projektholding GmbH v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/16. Award. 8 November 2010||CL-0061|
|Alps Finance and Trade v. Slovak Republic||Alps Finance and Trade AG v. The Slovak Republic, UNCITRAL. Award. 5 March 2011||RL-0140|
|Amco v. Indonesia||Amco Asia Corporation and others v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1 (resubmitted case). Decision on Jurisdiction, 10 May 1988||RL-0048|
|Amco v. Indonesia||Amco Asia Corporation and others v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1. Decision on Jurisdiction. 25 September 1983||CL-0131|
|Amoco v. Iran||Amoco International Finance Corporation v. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran National Iranian Oil Company, National Petrochemical Company and Kharg Chemical Company Limited, Case No. 56, Partial Award No. 310-56-3. 14 July 1987||CL-0097|
|Ampal v. Egypt||Ampal-American Israel Corp. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, (ICSID Case No. ARB/12/11), Decision on Liability and Heads of Loss. 21 February 2017||CL-0273|
|Anatolie Stati v. Kazakhstan||Anatolie Stati et al. v. Republic of Kazakhstan, SCC Arbitration No. 116/2010, Award. 19 December 2013||CL-007|
|Apotex v. United States||Apotex Holdings, Inc. and Apotec Inc. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/1. Procedural Order Deciding Bifurcation and Non-Bifurcation. 25 January 2013||CL-0112|
|Apotex v. United States||Apotex Holdings, Inc. and Apotex Inc. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/1. Award. 25 August 2014||RL-0047|
|Arif v. Moldova||Mr. Franck Charles Arif v. Republic of Moldova, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/23, Award. 8 April 2013||CL-0129|
|AWG v. Argentina||AWG v. Argentina. UNCITRAL, Decision on Liability, 30 July 2010||CL-0200|
|Azurix v. Argentina||Azurix Corp. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12, Decision on Jurisdiction, 8 December 2003||CL-0133|
|Azurix v. Argentina||Azurix Corp. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12, Award. 14 July 2006||CL-0010|
|Azurix v. Argentina||Azurix Corp. v. The Argentine Republic. ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12, Decision on the Application for Annulment of the Argentine Republic, 1 September 2009||CL-0099|
|Bayindir v. Pakistan||Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret Ve Sanayi A.S. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan. ICSID Case No. ARB/03/29, Decision on Jurisdiction, 14 November 2005||CL-0161 RL-0072|
|Bayindir v. Pakistan||Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret Ve Sanayi A.S. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan. ICSID Case No. ARB/03/29, Award, 27 August 2009||CL-0086|
|Bernardus Henricus v. Zimbabwe||Bernardus Henricus Funnekotter and others v. Republic of Zimbabwe, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/6. Award. 22 April 2009||CL-0104|
|BG Group v. Argentina||BG Group Plc v. The Republic of Argentina, UNCITRAL. Award. 24 December 2007||CL-0036|
|Biwater v. Tanzania||Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22. Award. 24 July 2008||CL-0014|
|Bogdanov v. Moldova||Iurii Bogdanov et al. v. Republic of Moldova, SCC Case Award. 22 September 2005||CL-0035|
|Bogdanov v. Moldova||Yuri Bogdanov and Yulia Bogdanov v. The Republic of Moldova, SCC Case No. V091/2012, Final Award. 16 April 2013||CL-0088|
|Bosnian Genocide Case||Case Concerning Application of The Convention On The Prevention And Punishment Of The Crime Of Genocide (Bosnia And Herzegovina v. Serbia And Montenegro), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p.43||RL-0049|
|Bureau Veritas v. Paraguay||Bureau Veritas, Inspection, Valuation, Assessment and Control, BIVAC B. V. v. The Republic of Paraguay. ICSID Case No. ARB/07/9, Further Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction, 9 October 2012||RL-0043|
|Burlington v. Ecuador||Burlington Resources Inc. v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5, Decision on Jurisdiction, 2 June 2010||CL-0058|
|Burimi v. Albania||Burimi S.R.L. and Eagle Games SH.A. v. Republic of Albania. ICSID Case No. ARB/11/18, Procedural Order No. 1 and Decision on Bifurcation. 18 April 2012||CL-0119|
|BCB v. Belize||British Caribbean Bank Limited (Turks & Caicos) v. Belize, PCA Case No. 2010-18/BCB-BZ, UNCITRAL. Award. 19 December 2014||CL-0236|
|Camuzzi v. Argentina||Camuzzi International SA. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/2, Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction. 11 May 2005||CL-0162|
|Caratube v. Kazakhstan||Caratube International Oil Company LLP v. Republic of Kazakhstan, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/12, Award. 5 June 2012||RL-0063|
|Cargill v. Mexico||Cargill, Incorporated v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/05/2, Procedural Order No. 3. 18 July 2007||CL-0118|
|Cementownia v. Turkey’||Cementownia "Nowa Huta " S.A. v. Republic of Turkey’, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/06/2, Award. 11 September 2009||RL-0023|
|Champion Trading v. Egypt||Champion Trading Company and Ameritrade International, Inc. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/9, Decision on Jurisdiction, 21 October 2003||CL-0240|
|Chevron v. Ecuador||Chevron Corp, and Texaco Petrol. Corp. v. Ecuador. PCA Case No. AA277, Interim Award. 1 December 2008. Paragraphs 86. 163-4||CL-171|
|CSOB v. Slovakia||Ceskoslovenska Obchodini Banka, A.S. v. The Slovak Republic. ICSID Case No. ARB/97/4; Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction, 24 May 1999||CL-0002 CL-0174|
|CME v. Czech Republic||CME Czech Republic B. V. v. The Czech Republic, Partial Award. 13 September 2001||CL-0029|
|CMS v. Argentina||CMS Gas Transmission Company v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8. Award. 12 May 2005||CL-0076|
|CMS v. Argentina||CMS Gas Transmission Company v. The Republic of Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction, 17 July 2003||CL-0152 RL-0071|
|CMS v. Argentina||CMS Gas Transmission Company v. The Republic of Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8. Decision on Annulment. 25 September 2007||RL-0162|
|Compañía de Aguas v. Argentina||Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3. Award, 20 August 2007||CL-0021|
|Compañía de Aguas v. Argentina||Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija SA and Vivendi Universal v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3. Decision on Annulment. 3 July 2002||RL-0032|
|Compañía del Desarrollo v. Costa Rica||Compañía del Desarrollo de Santa Elena S.A. v. Republic of Costa Rica, ICSID Case No. ARB/96/1. Award, 17 February 2000||CL-0100|
|Continental Casualty v. Argentina||Continental Casualty Company v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/9, Award. 5 September 2008||CL-0049 CL-0103|
|Corn Products v. Mexico||Corn Products International, Inc. v. The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/04/01, Decision on Responsibility, 15 January 2008||CL-0078|
|Deutsche Bank v. Sri Lanka||Deutsche Bank AG v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/02, Award. 31 October 2012||CL-0074|
|Duke Energy v. Ecuador||Duke Energy Electroquil Partners and Electroquil S.A. v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/19. Award. 18 August 2008||CL-0018|
|Dow Chemical France||Dow Chemical France, the Dow Chemical Company and others v. ISOVER Saint Gobain, ICC Case No. 4131. Interim Award. 23 September 1982, Paragraph 136||CL-0210|
|Maffezini v. Spain||Emilio Agustin Maffezini v. The Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/7, Decision on Jurisdiction. 25 January 2000||CL-0066|
|Maffezini v. Spain||Emilio Agustin Maffezini v. The Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/7, Award. 13 November 2000||CL-0070|
|Eastern Sugar v. Czech Republic||Eastern Sugar B. V. (Netherlands) v. The Czech Republic, SCC Case No. 088/2004. Partial Award. 27 March 2007||CL-0090|
|EDF International v. Argentina||EDF International S.A., SAUR International S.A. and León Participaciones Argentinas S.A. v. Argentine Republic. ICSID Case No. ARB/03/23, Award. 11 June 2012||CL-0158|
|EDF (Services) v. Romania||EDF (Services) Limited v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/13, Award. 8 October 2009||CL-0038|
|El Paso v. Argentina||El Paso Energy International Company v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/15, Award, 31 October 2011||CL-0075|
|Emmis v. Hungary||Emmis International Holding, B. V, Emmis Radio Operating, B. V, MEM Magyar Operating Media Kereskeldemi Es Szolgaltato Kft v. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/2, Decision on Respondent’s Application for Bifurcation, 13 June 2013||RL-0051|
|Encana Corp. v. Ecuador||EnCana Corporation v. Republic of Ecuador, LCIA Case No. UN 3481, Award, 3 February 2006||CL-0015|
|Enron v. Argentina||Enron Corp. & Ponderosa Assets, L.P. v. Argentine Republic. ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3, Award, 22 May 2007||CL-0079|
|Eureko v. Poland||Eureko v. Poland. Ad hoc Arbitration. Partial Award, 19 August 2005||CL-0031|
|Europe Cement v. Turkey||Europe Cement Investment & Trade S.A. v. Republic of Turkey’, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/07/2, Award, 13 August 2009||RL-0065|
|Fedax v. Venezuela||Fedax N. V. v. The Republic of Venezuela. ICSID Case No. ARB/96/3, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction, 11 July 1997||CL-0001|
|Feldman v Mexico||Marvin Feldman v. Mexico, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/99/l, Award, 16 December 2002||CL-0089|
|Flughafen v. Venezuela||Flughafen Zürich A. G. and Gestión e Ingeniería IDC S.A. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/19, Award. 18 November 2014||RL-0006|
|Fraport v. Philippines||Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Republic of the Philippines, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/25, Award and Dissenting Opinion of Prof. Bernardo Cremades, 16 August 2007||CL-0126|
|Fraport v. Philippines||Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Senices Worldwide v. Republic of the Philippines, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/12, Award. 10 December 2014||RL-0003|
|GEA v. Ukraine||GEA v. Ukraine. ICSID Case No. ARB/08/16. Award, 31 March 2011||RL-0139|
|Gemplus v. Mexico||Gemplus, S.A., SLP, S.A. and Gemplus Industrial, S.A. de C. V. v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/04/3 & ARB(AF)/04/4, Award. 16 June 2010||CL-0135|
|Generation Ukraine v. Ukraine||Generation Ukraine Inc. v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/9, Award, 16 September 2003||CL-0120|
|Glamis Gold v. United States||Glamis Gold, Limited v. The United States of America, NAFTA, UNCITRAL. Procedural Older No. 2,31 May 2005||RL-0057|
|Global Trading v. Ukraine||Global Trading Resource Corp, and Globex International, Inc. v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/11, Award. 1 December 2010||RL-0068|
|Gold Reserve v. Venezuela||Gold Reserve Inc. r. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/09/1. Award. 22 September 2014||CL-0040|
|Grand River v. United States||Grand River Enterprises Six Nations, Limited, et al. v. United States of America, UNCITRAL. Award, 12 January 2011||CL-0069|
|Grynberg v. Grenada||Rachel S. Grynberg, Stephen M. Grynberg, Miriam Z. Grynberg, and RSM Production Corporation v. Grenada. ICSID Case No. ARB/10/6. Award. 10 December 2010||RL-0053|
|Homester v. Ghana||Gustav F W Homester GmbH & Co KG v. Republic of Ghana, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/24, Award. 18 June 2010||RL-0009|
|Helnan v. Egypt||Helnan International Hotels AS v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/19, Award, 3 July 2008||RL-0025|
|H&H v. Egypt||H&H Enterprises Investments Inc. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/15, Award, 6 May 2014||RL-0026|
|Hochtief v. Argentina||Hochtief AG v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/31, Decision on Liability. 29 December 2014||CL-0247|
|Impregilo v. Pakistan||Impregilo S.p.A. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/3. Decision on Jurisdiction, 22 April 2005||CL-0057|
|Inceysa v. El Salvador||Inceysa Vallisoletana S.L. v. Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/26, Award. 2 August 2006||RL-0001|
|Inmaris Perestroika v. Ukraine||Inmaris Perestroika Sailing Maritime Services GmbH and others v. Ukraine. ICSID Case No. ARB/08/8. Decision on Jurisdiction, 30 April 2010||CL-0003 RL-0067|
|Invesmart v. Czech Republic||Invesmart B. V. v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL. Award. 26 June 2009||CL-0048|
|Ioan Micula v. Romania||Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula and others v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20. Award, 11 December 2013||CL-0041|
|Jan de Nul v. Egypt||Jan de Nul N. V. and Dredging International N. V v. Arab Republic of Egypt. ICSID Case No. ARB/04/13, Award. 6 November 2008||CL-0022|
|Jan Oostergetel v. Slovak Republic||Jan Oostergetel and Theodora Laurentius v. The Slovak Republic, UNCITRAL, Final Award. 23 April 2012||CL-0023|
|Joy Mining v. Egypt||Joy Mining Machinery Limited v. The Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/11. Award on Jurisdiction. 6 August 2004||CL-0059|
|Kardassopoulos v. Georgia||Ioannis Kardassopoulos v. Georgia, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/18, Decision on Jurisdiction. 6 July 2007||RL-0135|
|Kardassopoulos and Fuchs v. Georgia||Ioannis Kardassopoulos and Ron Fuchs v. Georgia, ICSID Case Nos. ARB/05/18 and ARB/07/15, Award. 3 March 2010||CL-0208|
|Klockner v. Cameroon||Klöckner Industrie-Anlagen GmbH v. Cameroon, ICSID Case No. ARB/81/2, Award. 21 October 1983||CL-0176|
|KT Asia v. Kazakhstan||KT Asia Investment Group B. V. v. Republic of Kazakhstan, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/8, Award. 17 October 2013||RL-0141|
|Lanco v. Argentina||Lanco International, Inc. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/6, Preliminary Decision: Jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal, 8 December 1998||CL-0154|
|Lesi v. Algeria||LESI, S.p.A. and Astaldi, S.p.A. v. People's Democratic Republic of Algeria, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/3, Award, 12 November 2008||CL-0072|
|LG&E v. Argentina||LG&E Energy’ Corp., LG&E Capital Corp, and LG&E International Inc. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1, Decision on Liability, 3 October 2006||CL-0016|
|Libananco v. Turkey||Libananco Holdings Co. Limited v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/8, Award, 2 September 2011||RL-0054|
|Loewen v. United States||The Loewen Group, Inc. and Raymond L. Loewen v. The United States of America, Award, 26 June 2003||CL-0068|
|Malicorp v. Egypt||Malicorp Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/18. Award. 7 February 2011||RL-0029|
|Merrill v. Canada||Merrill & Ring Forestry' L.P. v. The Government of Canada, NAFTA. UNCITRAL. Award, 31 March 2010||RL-0070|
|Mesa Power v. Canada||Mesa Power Group, LLC v. Government of Canada, PCA Case No. 2012-17. Procedural Order No. 2, 18 January 2013||RL-0058|
|Mesa Power v. Canada||Mesa Power Group, LLC v. Government of Canada, PCA Case No. 2012-17, Procedural Order No. 3, 28 March 2013||CL-0134|
|Malaysian Historical Salvors v. Malasia||Malaysian Historical Salvors v. Malaysia, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/10, Decision on the Application for Annulment, 16 April 2009||RL-0069|
|Mohamed Al-Bahloul v. Tajikistan||Mohammad Ammar Al-Bahloul v. Republic of Tajikistan, SCC Case No. V(064/2008). Partial Award on Jurisdiction and Liability, 2 September 2009||CL-0044|
|Mohamed Al-Bahloul v. Tajikistan||Mohammad Ammar Al-Bahloul v. Rep. of Tajikistan, SCC Case No. V 064/2008, Final Award, 8 June 2010||CL-0147|
|Metalclad v. Mexico||Metalclad Corporation v. The United Mexican States. ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/l. Award, 30 August 2000||CL-0071|
|Metal-Tech v. Uzbekistan||Metal-Tech Limited v. The Republic of Uzbekistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/3, Award. 4 October 2013||RL-0002|
|Middle East Cement v. Egypt||Middle East Cement Shipping and Handling Co. S.A. v. Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/99/6. Award. 12 April 2002||CL-0102|
|Nicaragua v. USA||Military and Paramilitary’ Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. USA), Merits, Judgement, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 14||N/A|
|Mobil v. Canada||Mobil Investments Canada Inc. and Murphy Oil Corporation v. Canada, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/07/4. Decision on Liability and on Principles of Quantum. 22 May 2012||CL-0043|
|Mon dev v. United States||Mondev International Ltd. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/99/2, Final Award, 11 October 2002||CL-0053|
|MTD v. Chile||MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. and MTD Chile S.A. v. Th e Republic of Chile. ICSID Case No. ARB/01/7, Award. 25 May 2004||CL-0011|
|MTD v. Chile||MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. and MTD Chile S.A. v. Th e Republic of Chile. ICSID Case No. ARB/01/7, Decision on Annulment, 21 March 2007||N/A|
|Mytilineos v. Montenegro and Serbia||Mytilineos Holdings SA v. Serbia and Montenegro and Serbia, UNCITRAL. Partial Award on Jurisdiction, 8 September 2008||CL-0172|
|National Grid v. Argentina||National Grid P.L.C. v. Argentine Republic, UNCITRAL. Award. 3 November 2008||CL-0008|
|Niko Resources v. Bangladesh||Niko Resources v. People's Republic of Bangladesh et al, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/11 and ARB/10/18, Decision on Jurisdiction, 19 August 2013||CL-0128|
|Nordzucker v. Poland||Nordzucker AG v. The Republic of Poland, UNCITRAL. Second Partial Award (Merits), 28 January 2009||CL-0080|
|Northern Cameroons Case||Case Concerning the Northern Cameroons (Cameroon v. United Kingdom), Preliminary Objections Judgment of 2 December 1963, I.C.J. Reports 1968, p.15||RL-0034|
|Nova Scotia v. Venezuela||Nova Scotia Power Incorporated (Canada) v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/11/1. Award. 30 April 2014||RL-0066|
|Nuclear Tests Case||Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France), Judgment, 20 December 1974. I.C.J Reports 1974, p.457||RL-0035|
|Occidental v. Ecuador||Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/11, Award. 5 October 2012||CL-0017|
|Occidental v. Ecuador||Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/11, Decision on Annulment, 2 November 2015||RL-0024|
|Occidental Exploration v. Ecuador||Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. The Republic of Ecuador, LCIA Case No. UN3467. Final Award. 1 July 2004||CL-0087|
|OI European Group v. Venezuela||OI European Group B. V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/25, Award, 10 March 2015||RL-0136|
|Pan American Energy v. Argentina||Pan American Energy LLC and BP Argentina Exploration Company v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/13, Decision on Preliminary Objections, 27 July 2006||RL-0073|
|Panteclmiki v. Albania||Panteclmiki S.A. Contractors & Engineers (Greece) v. Republic of Albania, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/21, Award, 30 July 2009||RL-0028|
|Parkerings v. Lithuania||Parkerings-Compagniet AS v. Republic of Lithuania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/08, Award, 11 September 2007||CL-0045|
|Patrick Mitchell v. Congo||Patrick Mitchell v. The Democratic Republic of Congo, ICSID Case No. ARB/99/7, Decision on the Application for Annulment of the Award. 1 November 2006||RL-0133|
|Perenco v. Ecuador||Perenco Ecuador Limited v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/6, Decision on the Remaining Issues of Jurisdiction and on Liability, 12 September 2014||CL-0047|
|Petrobart v. Kyrgyz Republic||Petrobart Limited v. The Kyrgyz Republic, SCC Case No. 126/2003, Arbitral Award. 29 March 2005||CL-0024|
|Pey Casado v. Chile||Pey Casado and 'President Allende"Foundation v. Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No ARB/98/2, Award. 8 May 2008||CL-0105|
|Philip Morris v. Australia||Philip Morris Asia Limited v. The Commonwealth of Australia, UNCITRAL. PCA No. Case 2012-12, Procedural Order No. 8 Regarding Bifurcation of the Procedure. 14 April 2014||CL-0059|
|Phoenix v. Czech Republic||Phoenix Action Limited v. The Czech Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5, Award, 15 April 2009||RL-0004|
|Plama v. Bulgaria||Plama Consortium Limited v. Republic of Bulgaria. ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Award. 27 August 2008||RL-0007|
|PSEG v. Turkey'||PSEG Global Inc. and Konya Ilgin Elektrik Uretim ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/5, Award. 19 January 2007||CL-0030|
|Quasar de Valores v. Russia||Quasar de Valores SICAV S.A., et al. v. The Russian Federation, SCC, Award, 20 July 2012||CL-0244|
|Railroad v. Guatemala||Railroad Development Corporation v. Republic of Guatemala, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/23, Second Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction, 18 May 2010||CL-0130|
|Renee Rose v. Peru||Renée Rose Lexy de Levi v. Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/17, Award, 26 February 2014||CL-0085|
|Robert Azinian v. Mexico||Robert Azinian, Kenneth Davitian, & Ellen Baca v. The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/97/2, Award, 1 November 1999||RL-0027|
|Rompetrol v. Romania||The Rompetrol Group. N. V. v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/3, Award, 6 May 2013||CL-0146|
|Ronald Lauder v. Czech Republic||Ronald S. Lauder v. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Award, 3 September 2001||CL-0092|
|Romak v. Uzbekistan||Romak S.A. (Switzerland) v. The Republic of Uzbekistan, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. AA280, Award, 26 November 2009||RL-0138|
|Rumeli v. Kazakhstan||Rumeli Telekom A.S. and Telsim Mobil Telekomunikasyon Hizmetleri A.S. v, Republic of Kazakhstan, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/16, Award. 29 July 2008||CL-0020|
|Saghi v. Iran||James M. Saghi, Michael R. Saghi and Allan J. Saghi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, Award, 22 January 1993||CL-0140|
|Salini v. Morocco||Salini Costruttori S.p.A and Italstrade S.p.A. v. Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/4, Decision on Jurisdiction, 23 July 2001||CL-0143|
|Salini v. Jordan||Salini Costruttori S.p.A and Italstrade S.p.A. v. The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/13, Decision on Jurisdiction, 29 November 2004||CL-0060|
|Salini v. Morocco||Salini Costruttori S.P.A. and Italstrade S.P.A. v. Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/4, Decision on Jurisdiction, 16 July 2001||CL-0006|
|Saluka v. Czech Republic||Saluka Investments BV (The Netherlands) v. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Partial Award. 17 March 2006||CL-0067|
|SAUR v. Argentina||SAUR International v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/4, Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability, 6 June 2012||RL-0005|
|S.D. Myers v. Canada||S.D., Myers, Inc. v. Government of Canada, First Partial Award. 13 November 2000||CL-0077|
|Sempra v. Argentina||Sempra Energy’ International v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16, Award. 28 September 2007||CL-0032|
|SGS v. Philippines||SGS Société Genérale de Surveillance S.A. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/13, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction, 6 August 2003||CL-0062|
|SGS v. Philippines||SGS Société Genérale de Surveillance v. Republic of the Philippines, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/6, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction. 29 January 2004||RL-0030|
|SGS v. Philippines||SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. The Republic of Paraguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/29, Decision on Jurisdiction, 12 February 2010||CL-0004|
|Siag v. Egypt||Wauih Elie George Siag et Clorida Vecchi v. The Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/15, Award, 1 June 2009||CL-0013|
|Siemens v. Argentina||Siemens A.G. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8, Decision on Jurisdiction, 3 August 2004||CL-0132|
|Siemens v. Argentina||Siemens A.G. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8. Award. 6 February 2007||CL-0009|
|Sistem v. Kyrgyzstan||Sistem Muhendislik Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v. Kyrgyz Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/06/1, Award. 9 September 2009||N/A|
|SOABI v. Senegal||Société Ouest Africaine des Bétons Industriels (SOABI) v. Senegal, ICSID Case No. ARB/82/1, Award. 25 February 1988||CL-0175|
|Southern Bluefin Tuna Case||Southern Bluefin Tuna Case between Australia and Japan and between New Zealand and Japan, Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility. 4 August 2000||RL-0033|
|Southern Pacific Railroad v. United States||Southern Pacific Railroad Company v. United States, US Supreme Court, Judgment, argued 2 and 3 December 1896. decided 18 October 1897||RL-0046|
|Spanish Egyptian Gas Company v. Egyptian Natural Gas Holding Company||Spanish Egyptian Gas Company, S.A.E. (Egypt) v. Egyptian Natural Gas Holding Company (Egypt), ICC Case No. 19392/MD/TO, Second Partial Final Award. 24 May 2016||R-0323|
|SPP v. Egypt||Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt. ICSID Case No. ARB/84/3, Decision on Jurisdiction. 27 November 1985||RL-0042|
|SPP v. Egypt||Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt. ICSID Case No. ARB/84/3, Award on the Merits, 20 May 1992||CL-0122|
|Spyridon Roussalis v. Romania||Spyridon Roussalis v. Romania. ICSID Case No..ARB/06/1, Award, 7 December 2011||CL-0093|
|ST-AD GmbH v. Bulgaria||ST-AD GmbH (Germany) v. The Republic of Bulgaria, UNCITRAL, PCA No. 2011-06, Award on Jurisdiction, 18 July 2013||RL-0022|
|Suez v. Argentina||Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. and Interagua Servicios Integrales de Agua S.A. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/17, Decision on Liability, 30 July 2010||CL-0037|
|Swisslion v. FYR Macedonia||Swisslion DOO Skopje v. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. ICSID Case No. ARB/09/16, Award. 6 July 2012||CL-0012|
|Técnicas v. Mexico||Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, S.A. v. The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/2, Award, 29 May 2003||CL-0019|
|The Mox Plant Case||The Mox Plant Case (Ireland v. United Kingdom), PCA Case, Order No. 3, 24 June 2003||RL-0041|
|Thunderbird v. Mexico||International Thunderbird Gaming Corporation v. The United Mexican States, NAFTA, UNC11KAL, Separate Opinion of Thomas Walde. December 2005||CL-0121|
|Thunderbird v. Mexico||International Thunderbird Gaming Corporation v. The United Mexican States, UNCITRAL, Final Award, 26 January 2006||CL-0039|
|Total v. Argentina||Total S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/1, Decision on Liability, 27 December 2010||CL-0042|
|Toto v. Lebanon||Toto Costruzioni Generali S.P.A v. Republic of Lebanon, ICSID Case No. ARB/07112, Decision on Jurisdiction, 11 September 2009||CL-0150|
|Toto v. Lebanon||Toto Costruzioni Generali S.P.A v. Republic of Lebanon, ICSID Case No. ARB/07112, Award. 7 June 2012||CL-0046|
|Toldos Tokelés v. Ukraine||Toldos Tokelés v. Ukraine. ICSID Case No. ARB/02/18, Decision on Jurisdiction, 29 April 2004||RL-0055|
|TSA v. Argentina||TSA Spectrum de Argentina S.A. v. Argentine Republic. ICSID Case No. ARB/05/5, Award, 19 December 2008||RL-0137|
|Tulip v. Turkey'||Tulip Real Estate Investment and Development Netherlands B.V. v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/28, Decision on the Respondent’s Request for Bifurcation under Article 41(2) of the ICSID Convention, 2 November 2012||RL-0053|
|Tulip v. Turkey’||Tulip Real Estate and Development Netherlands B. V. v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/28, Award. 10 March 2014||CL-0073|
|Ulysseas v. Ecuador||Ulysseas, Inc v. The Republic of Ecuador, UNCITRAL. Final Award. 12 June 2012||RL-0079|
|Vigotop v. Hungary||Vigotop Limited v. Hungary’, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/22, Award. 1 October 2014||CL-0063|
|Vito Gallo v. Canada||Vito G. Gallo v. The Government of Canada, NAFTA - UNCITRAL. PCA Case No. 55798. Award, 15 September 2011||RL-0021|
|Walter Ban v. Thailand||Walter Ban AG (In Liquidation) v. The Kingdom of Thailand, UNCITRAL. Award. 1 July 2009||CL-0050|
|Waste Mangeinent v. Mexico II||Waste Management, Inc. v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/3, Award. 30 April 2004||CL-0033|
|WDF v. Kenya||World Duty Free Company Limited v. The Republic of Kenya. ICSID Case No. ARB/00/7, Award, 4 October 2006||RL-0020|
|Wena v. Egypt||Wena Hotels Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4, Award. 8 December 2000||CL-0101|
|Wintershall v. Qatar||Wintershall A.G.. et al. v. Government of Qatar, Final Award, 5 February 1988 and 31 May 1988||CL-0188|
|Procedural Order No. 1||3 August 2015|
|Procedural Order No. 2||3 August 2015|
|Procedural Order No. 3||28 September 2015|
|Procedural Order No. 4||22 December 2015|
|Procedural Order No. 5||4 March 2016|
|Procedural Order No. 6||8 April 2016|
|Procedural Order No. 7||22 August 2016|
|Procedural Order No. 8||12 December 2016|
|Procedural Order No. 9||31 January 2017|
|Procedural Order No. 10||6 February 2017|
|Procedural Order No. 11||1 March 2017|
|Procedural Order No. 12||2 March 2017|
|Procedural Order No. 13||4 September 2017|
|Procedural Order No. 14||12 December 2017|
|Procedural Order No. 15||9 January 2018|
|Procedural Order No. 16||2 February 2018|
|Procedural Order No. 17||11 July 2018|
On behalf of the Claimant:
Mr Doak Bishop King & Spalding
Mr James Castello King & Spalding
Mr Ed Kehoe King & Spalding
Ms Isabel Fernandez de la Cuesta King & Spalding
Ms Nilufar Hossain King & Spalding
Mr Rami Chahine King & Spalding
Ms Sara Burns King & Spalding
Ms Sara McBrearty King & Spalding
Mr David Weiss King & Spalding
Ms Virginia Castelan King & Spalding
Mr Timothy McKenzie King & Spalding
Ms Zhennia Silverman King & Spalding
Ms Carol Tamez King & Spalding
Mr Javier Gerboles De Galdiz Unión Fenosa Gas, S.A.
Ms Wendy Valentina Quintero Unión Fenosa Gas, S.A.
Ms Elena Feliu Vera Unión Fenosa Gas, S.A.
Mr. Ignacio de la Pena Unión Fenosa Gas, S.A.
On behalf of the Respondent
Ms Claudia Annacker Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
Mr Robert T. Greig Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
Mr J. Cameron Murphy Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
Ms Laurie Achtouk-Spivak Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
Mr Larry Work-Dembowski Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
Ms Ariella Rosenberg Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
Ms S. Ellie Norton Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
Mr Pablo Mateos Rodríguez Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
Ms Sarah Moy Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
Ms Emilie Mills Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
Counsellor/ Mahmoud El Khrashy Egyptian State Lawsuits Authority (ESLA)
Counsellor/ Amr Arafa Egyptian State Lawsuits Authority (ESLA)
Counsellor/ Yousria El Gamal Egyptian State Lawsuits Authority (ESLA)
Counsellor/ Yasmine Shamekh Egyptian State Lawsuits Authority (ESLA)
Counsellor/ Nada Elzahar Egyptian State Lawsuits Authority (ESLA)
On behalf of the Claimant:
Mr José Javier Fernández Martínez
Mr José María Egea Krauel
Mr Javier Sáez Ramírez
Mr Paolo Conti
Mr José Luis de Lara Alonso-Burón
Mr Christopher John Goncalves
Mr Kenneth B. Medlock III
Mr Kiran P. Sequiera
Mr Gardner William Walkup Jr.
On behalf of the Respondent:
Mr Hassan El Mahdy
Mr Mahmoud Abdel Hameed
Mr Ahmed Shaaban
Dr Antón García
Mr Ian Davison
Dr Mohsin Khan
Mr Gervase MacGregor
On behalf of the Claimant:
Mr Javier Sáez Ramírez Unión Fenosa Gas, S.A.
Mr José María Egea Krauel Unión Fenosa Gas, S.A.
Mr José Javier Fernández Martínez Unión Fenosa Gas, S.A.
Mr José de Lara Alonso-Burón Unión Fenosa Gas, S.A.
Mr Christopher John Goncalves BRG
Mr Gardner William Walkup Jr. BRG
Mr Kenneth B. Medlock III Center for Energy Studies, Baker Institute for Public Policy, Houston, TX
Mr Kiran Sequeira Navigant
On behalf of the Respondent:
Mr Ahmed Shaaban Egyptian Natural Gas Company (GASCO)
Mr Hassan El Mahdy Egyptian Natural Gas Holding Company (EGAS)
Mr Mahmoud Abdel Hameed Egyptian Natural Gas Holding Company (EGAS)
Mr Gervase MacGregor BDO LLP
Mr Ian Davison RPS Energy Consultants Limited
Dr Antón García Compass Lexecon
Earlier this week, on December 5, 2017, EGAS sought leave from the Tribunal in CRCICA Case 896 to disclose to Egypt the pleadings filed by UFG and EGAS on EGAS' corruption defense in that case. EGAS explained to the Tribunal that it sought such leave because Egypt intends to submit these Case 896 pleadings in this arbitration. Specifically, EGAS stated: 'We understand that the Arab Republic of Egypt would seek to place these submissions before the tribunal in Unión Fenosa Gas, S.A. v. Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/14/4).' Egypt's determination to use these materials must be quite strong since EGAS made its request notwithstanding that the Case 896 Tribunal had already closed that proceeding and admonished the parties not to submit further requests […] As we have previously noted, EGAS has entered into a joint defense agreement with Egypt and is therefore doubtless well informed of Egypt's intentions in this arbitration [... ].
1. The Tribunal refers to the Respondent's application to the Tribunal for an order admitting new documents into this arbitration's evidential file and to the Claimant's opposition to the Respondent's application. The Respondent's application addressed originally only six documents. The Claimant thereafter produced a seventh document. The Tribunal considers that all seven documents should be read together for the purpose of this Procedural Order.
2. The Tribunal refers to its Procedural Orders Nos 13, 14 and 15 and the Parties' respective letters (or email messages) dated 22 January 2018 (two), 3 January 2018, 21 December 2017, 8 December 2017, 30 November 2017, 23 November 2017, 20 September 2017 (email), 19 September 2017 (email), 8 August 2017, 30 June 2017 and 21 June 2017.
3. Notwithstanding the Respondent's application made at a late stage of this arbitration, the Tribunal considers that these six new documents are relevant to issues raised by the Parties' dispute, as also the seventh document. Accordingly, the Tribunal has decided to admit these seven new documents into the evidential file, together with the Parties' several submissions regarding these documents made in their respective correspondence listed above.
4. This Procedural Order is strictly limited to the admission of the seven new documents into the evidential file. The arbitration's evidential file is closed to the Parties. Nonetheless, the Tribunal reserves its right to request any further written explanations from the Parties.
(i) the Project takes place in a country known for corrupt payments, namely Egypt at the time of the events in question;
(iii) There is no substantial time lag between [REDACTED] and the date when the main contract is awarded to the principal ([REDACTED] to 1 August 2000);
(iv) The subject matter of the [REDACTED] is not tangible (for example, [REDACTED]
(v) The agent has a close personal or family relationship, or business relationship, with a public official or relative of an official (such as that between Mr El Komy and the Respondent's Minister Mr Fahmy), which is the only qualification the agent brings to the venture;
(vi) The agent is a shell company or has some other non-transparent corporate structure (EATCO is a shell entity owned by members of Mr El Komy's family);
(b) Dismiss Claimant's claims for lack of jurisdiction;
(c) In eventu, decline to exercise jurisdiction over Claimant's claims;
(e) Order Claimant to pay to Respondent the full costs of this arbitration, including, without limitation, arbitrators' fees and expenses, administrative costs, counsel fees, expenses and any other costs associated with this arbitration;
(f) Order Claimant to pay to Respondent interest on the amounts awarded under (e) aboveuntil the date of full payment;
(g) Grant any further relief to Respondent as it may deem appropriate.
(a) Reject Egypt's jurisdictional objections in their entirety and confirm its jurisdiction over the dispute;
(b) Order Egypt to pay all costs and expenses of the jurisdictional phase of this arbitration, including the fees and expenses of UFG's legal representatives in respect of this phase and any other costs; and
[(c)] Order any further relief that the tribunal deems just and appropriate.
(d) In eventu , suspend the proceedings pending the resolution of the Contractual Arbitrations [described as the ICC arbitration between SEGAS and EGAS under the Tolling Agreement; the CRCICA arbitration between UFG and EGAS under the SPA; and the CRCICA arbitration between UFG and EGAS under the SPA).
(c) Deny Egypt's request that these proceedings be suspended pending resolution of the CRCICA and ICC arbitrations […]
a. Declare that Egypt has violated the BIT in connection with its treatment of UFG and UFG's investment;
b. Award Claimant compensation for the full amount of damages it suffered due to Egypt's breaches of its BIT obligations, in the amounts set forth in this Memorial;
c. Award Claimant pre-award and post-award interest on any compensatory amounts until the date of full satisfaction of the award, at a rate to be determined by the Tribunal in accordance with the BIT;
d. Order Egypt to pay all costs and expenses of this arbitration, including ICSID's administrative fees, the fees and expenses of the Arbitral Tribunal, the fees and expenses of UFG's legal representatives in respect of this arbitration and any other costs of this arbitration; and
e. Grant any other and further relief that it deems just and proper.
(a) Dismiss the Claimant's claims in their entirety for lack of jurisdiction and/or as inadmissible;
(b) In eventu, stay the proceeding pending the resolution of the contractual arbitrations;
(c) Alternatively, dismiss Claimant's claims on the merits in their entirety;
(d) In the further alternative, declare that Claimant is not entitled to the damages it seeks, or to any damages;
(e) In any event, order Claimant to pay all the costs of this arbitration as well as the Respondent's legal costs and expenses in connection with this arbitration, including but not limited to its attorney's fees and expenses and the fees and expenses of its experts; and
(f) grant such further relief against Claimant as the Tribunal deems fit and proper.
For the purposes of the present Agreement,
1. The term 'Investor' means:
a) any individual who, in the case of Spanish investors, is resident in Spain under Spanish law and, in the case of investors of the other Party, possesses its nationality pursuant to the law of that Party;
b) any legal entity, including companies, associations of companies, trading corporate entities and other organizations which is incorporated or, in any event, is properly organized under the law of that Party and is actually managed from the territory of that Party.
2. The term 'Investment' means any kind of assets, such as goods and rights of all sorts, acquired under the law of the host country of the investment and in particular, although not exclusively, the following:
-  shares and other forms of participation in companies;
-  rights arising from all types of contributions made for the purpose of creating economic value, including every loan granted for this purpose, whether capitalized or not;
-  movable and immovable property and any other property rights such as mortgages, loans or pledges;
-  any rights in the field of intellectual property, including patents and trademarks, as well as manufacturing licences and know-how;
-  rights to engage in economic and commercial activities authorized by law or by virtue of a contract, particularly those rights to search for, cultivate, extract or exploit natural resources, in accordance with existing laws and regulations.
3. The term 'returns' refers to income deriving from an investment in accordance with the definition contained above, and includes, in particular, profits, dividends and interests.
4. The term 'territory' designates the land territory and territorial waters of each of the Parties, as well as the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf that extends outside the limits of the territorial waters of each of the Parties, over which they have or may have jurisdiction and sovereign rights for the purposes of prospectioning [sic], exploration and conservation of natural resources, pursuant to international law.
1. Each Party shall protect in its territory the investments made in accordance with its laws and regulations, by investors of the other Party and shall not hamper, by means of unjustified or discriminatory measures, the management, maintenance use, enjoyment, expansion, sale and if it is the case, the liquidation of such investments.
1. Each Party shall guarantee in its territory fair and equitable treatment for the investments made by investors of the other Party.
2. This treatment shall not be less favorable than that which is extended by each Party to the investments made in its territory by investors of a third country.
5. In addition to the provisions of paragraph 2 of this article, each Party shall apply, under its own law, no less favourable treatment to the investments of investors of the other Party than which is that granted to its own investors.
The nationalization, expropriation or any other measure of similar characteristics or effects that may be applied by the authorities of one Party against the investments in its own territory of investors of the other Party must be applied exclusively for reasons of public interest pursuant to the law, and shall in no case be discriminatory. The Party adopting such measures shall pay to the investor or his legal beneficiary an adequate indemnity in convertible currency without unjustified delay.
1. Disputes between one of the Parties and one investor of the other Party shall be notified in writing, including a detailed information, by the investor to the host Party of the investment. As far as possible the Parties shall endeavour to settle these differences by means of a friendly agreement.
2. If these disputes cannot be settled in this way within six months from the date of the written notification mentioned in paragraph 1, the conflict shall be submitted, at the choice of the investor, to:
-  a court of arbitration in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce.
-  the court of arbitration of the Paris International Chamber of Commerce.
-  the ad hoc court of arbitration established under the Arbitration Rules of Procedure of the United Nations Commission for International Trade Law.
-  the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) set up by the 'Convention on Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of other States', in case both Parties become signatories of this Convention.
-  Regional Center for International Commercial Arbitration in Cairo.
3. The arbitration shall be based on:
-  the provisions of this agreement;
-  the national law of the Party in whose territory the investment was made, including the rules relative to conflicts of law;
-  the rules and the universally accepted principles of international law.
4. The arbitration decisions shall be final and binding for the parties in conflict. Each Party undertakes to execute the decisions in accordance with its national law.
 Given that the capacity of the Complex shall be known once the EPC Contract is executed, Buyer shall notify Seller the nominal capacity of the Complex as prompt [sic] as possible after signature of the EPC Contract, and Seller commits to sell and deliver to the Buyer at the Delivery Point up to the maximum of the amount of NG needed for the nominal capacity of the Complex, according to the terms of this Agreement and the nomination procedure to be included in the Coordination, Operating and Measurement Agreement.
 In the event that new natural gas liquefaction trains are constructed by Buyer, then Buyer shall notify Seller of the nominal capacity of the new train/s as prompt [sic] as possible and Seller undertakes to sell and deliver to Buyer at the Delivery Point up to the maximum of the amount of NG and daily quantities of NG needed for such capacity.
 Seller shall also sell and deliver to the Buyer at the Delivery Point the NG that Buyer requests for the execution of the commissioning, start-up and testing, and any other action needed for the commercial operation of the Complex, at the price set forth in Article 13, and with the specific delivery conditions set forth under the Coordination, Operating and Measurement Agreement.
 Seller shall be the exclusive responsible [sic] for the transportation, supply and delivery of NG to the Delivery Point specified in Article 12.
 Seller shall at all times keep a back up supply to meet an on stream (load) factor of 95% of the LNG Complex.
During each Contract Year, Buyer will be obligated to purchase, take and pay for, or pay for if not taken a minimum of ninety per cent (90%) of the ACQ applicable for such Contract Year, less any amount of NG to be deducted from the ACQ (or from the quantity applicable for each Contract Year of the Build-up period, as the case may be) due to the occurrence of
(i) Force Majeure events, (ii) Seller's failure to supply the NG, and/or (iii) scheduled maintenance of the Complex ('Adjusted ACQ, ').
If for any reason whatsoever, the capacity of the Complex is increased (due to the increase in capacity of the first train up to a maximum of 10% of the then existing ACQ or due to the construction of new train/s), Seller shall be obligated to sell and deliver to Buyer the NG necessary for that increase in capacity. The take or pay obligations of the Buyer for the first train shall not be altered and therefore they shall be 90% of the ACQ as defined in 4.1, less the amounts and concepts mentioned in (i), (ii) and (iii) of this Section 6.1.
 If Seller, for reasons other than Force Majeure or Buyer's failure to take, fails to deliver at the Delivery Point a quantity of NG nominated by Buyer according to this Agreement, Seller shall be liable to Buyer for any damages, costs and/or expenses (to the extent permissible under Egyptian laws, but excluding consequential damages and loss of profits) arising from Seller's failure to supply, including (i) third party's claims and penalties against Buyer, (ii) costs, extra-costs, damages and expenses caused to the Complex arising from Seller's failure to supply, including operation and maintenance costs (expressed in USD per MMBTU), and capital investment costs (expressed in USD per MMBTU)."
 Seller's liability vis-a-vis Buyer as a result of this Section 8.1 shall not exceed an amount equivalent to ninety per cent (90%) of the Price applicable to the NG not delivered by Seller.
The quality specification of the NG to be supplied to Buyer, shall be in accordance with the Specifications contained in Annex 2 (' NG Specifications ') of this Agreement, which shall include the typical values for such NG and the limits of such values which are acceptable for Buyer. The procedures for measurement of quality and tests shall be developed in the Coordination, Operating and Measurement Agreement referred to in Article 19.
For the purposes of this agreement 'Force Majeure' means an event or circumstance which is beyond the reasonable control of a Party or Parties (acting and having acted with reasonable level of due diligence) resulting in or causing failure by the Party concerned to perform any of its obligations hereunder.
The Parties shall be relieved from liability under this Agreement for so long as and to the extent that due to Force Majeure, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing Section 15.1, any of the following events or circumstances, (each of which shall constitute a Force Majeure event only to the extent that it satisfies the requirements of Section 15.1) occurs:
Any act of war, invasion, armed forces conflict or act of foreign enemy, blockade, embargo or revolution.
Any riot, insurrection, civil commotion, act or campaign of terrorism or sabotage that is part of religious or ethnic unrest or commotion that is widespread or nationwide, such as, by way of example and not limitation, actions associated with or directed against the Buyer (or its contractors) as a part of a broader pattern of actions against companies or facilities with foreign ownership or management.
(iv) Strikes, works to rule, labor unrest or go-slows that are widespread or nationwide or that are of a political nature, (but not where the same is related to the Seller or any of their assignees, affiliates, joints ventures [sic], contractors and subcontractors or successors in title) such as, by way of example and not limitation, labor actions directed against the Buyer (or of its contractors and subcontractors) as a part of a broader pattern or labor actions against companies or facilities with foreign ownership or management.
The parties shall further be relieved from liability under this Agreement as follows:
(A) In the case of Seller:
(1) For so long and to the extent that due to Force Majeure and/or
(2) For so long as and to the extent that owing to the failure due to Force Majeure by a third party, acting with a reasonable level of due diligence of its obligations to Seller to produce, transport, process, or handle NG to be made available to Buyer hereunder provided that in respect of such failure by a third party, the reasons giving rise to such failure would constitute a Force Majeure event as defined in this Agreement affecting to such third party, Seller is unable to make available the properly nominated quantity of NG in accordance with this Agreement […].
Where Force Majeure partially affects Seller's obligation to supply NG to Buyer and to any other purchaser/s, Seller shall treat Buyer no worse than any other present or future purchaser/s of NG. This right shall be binding upon the Parties at all times, including the event of shortage of NG […]
In the case of the Seller, Force Majeure shall not include changes in market conditions including, without limitation, changes that:
(i) Directly or indirectly affect the demand for or price of NG.
(ii) Result in the diversion of NG to other users,
(iii) Are due to the inability of the transportation system and/or pipeline (whether for reasons of maintenance, repairs or lack of capacity or otherwise) to meet consumer demand and/or Buyer demand.
(a) Any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, or breach, termination or invalidity thereof between the Parties, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the Cairo Regional Center for International Commercial Arbitration (the 'Cairo Center') in effect on the date of execution of this Agreement.
(f) The award of the arbitrators shall be final and binding upon the Parties and the arbitral award rendered shall be final and conclusive.
To the extent that any of the Parties may in any jurisdiction claim for itself or its assets immunity from suit, execution, attachment (whether in aid of execution, before judgement or otherwise) or other legal process and to the extent that in any such jurisdiction there may be attributed to itself or its assets such immunity (whether or not claimed), such Party hereby irrevocably waives such immunity to the full extent permitted by the laws of such jurisdiction.
Buyer and Seller represent and warrant to each other that neither of them nor any of their respective shareholders have any legal privileges or special rights that could render this Agreement or the arbitral awards granted pursuant to Section 16.4 totally or partially unenforceable against them.
EGPC undertakes to procure that the Egyptian authorities undertake not to interfere with the rights of Buyer under this Agreement, and not to dictate or promulgate any act or regulation which could directly or indirectly affect the rights of Buyer under this Agreement, or affect the capacity of Buyer to perform its obligations under this Agreement, even in the case of a NG shortage in Egypt, save for Force Majeure situations as defined in this Agreement.
EGPC shall also assist and actively collaborate with Buyer to obtain any authorization and/or legal, administrative or governmental benefit to Buyer for the Project and/or construction of the Complex.
Seller is the sole responsible [sic] for securing adequate supplies of NG for performance of its obligations hereunder. Seller shall, throughout the Term, provide Buyer or Lenders with such further assurances as Buyer or Lenders may reasonably request from time to time regarding the continued adequacy of NG supply sources relied upon by Seller to perform hereunder. In no case this shall represent for Seller additional obligations to those set forth in this Agreement.
Each Party represents and warrants to the other Party that (a) it possesses all power, authority, and applicable approvals (if any) necessary for it to enter into this Agreement, (b) this Agreement constitutes the valid and binding obligation of such Party enforceable against it in accordance with the terms thereof, (c) the execution, delivery, and performance hereof will not cause such Party to be in violation of any other agreement or law, regulation, order, or court process or decision to which it is a party or by which it or its properties are bound or affected, (d) it has and will maintain all regulatory authorizations, certificates, and documentation as may be necessary and legally required for it to transport, buy, sell or make sales for resale of NG sold or purchased under this Agreement; (e) it is a producer, processor, or commercial user of, or a merchant handling, of [sic] NG and has entered into this Agreement solely for purposes related to its business as such, (f) it has consulted with its own legal, regulatory, tax, business, investment, financial, and accounting advisors to the extent it has deemed necessary, and it has made its own investment, hedging, and trading decisions (including decisions regarding the suitability of this Agreement) based upon its own judgement and upon any advice from such advisors as it has deemed necessary and not upon any view expressed by the other Party, (g) it understands the terms, conditions, and risks of this Agreement and is capable of assuming and willing to assume (financially and otherwise) those risks, (h) it is acting as principal, and not as agent, fiduciary, or any other capacity, and (i) the other Party is not acting as a fiduciary or financial, investment, or commodity trading advisor for it.
Seller is aware that the supply of NG to Buyer under this Agreement is a key element for the successful development of the Project, and therefore Seller represents and warrants that its availability of NG will be sufficient to feed the Complex under the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Also, Seller represents and warrants that it has, and will have during the Term, all the legal, administrative and corporate rights, licenses and authorizations to deliver the NG at the Delivery Point and to comply with all its obligations under this Agreement.
Any Dispute arising in connection with this Contract and that is not solved through Article 11.2 (Referral of Disputes to Senior Management) shall be finally settled under the Rules of Conciliation and Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce. In relation to an arbitration:
(a) the language of the arbitration shall be English;
(b) the place of arbitration shall be Paris; and
(c) there shall be three arbitrators, the first being appointed by the Owner, the second being appointed by the Toller and the third being appointed by the Owner and the Toller or, if either the Owner or the Toller has failed to appoint an arbiter or both have failed to agree upon the appointment of the third arbiter within thirty (30) days of the date the Parties determined to submit the dispute to arbitration, being appointed in accordance with the said Rules.
The jurisdiction of the Centre shall extend to any legal dispute arising directly out of an investment, between a Contracting State (or any constituent subdivision or agency of a Contracting State designated to the Centre by that State) and a national of another Contracting State, which the parties to the dispute consent in writing to submit to the Centre. When the parties have given their consent, no party may withdraw its consent unilaterally.
(1) The conduct of any State organ shall be considered an act of that State under international law, whether the organ exercises legislative, executive, judicial or any other functions, whatever position it holds in the organization of the State, and whatever its character as an organ of the central Government or of a territorial unit of the State.
(2) An organ includes any person or entity which has that status in accordance with the internal law of the State.
The conduct of a person or entity which is not an organ of the State under Article 4 but which is empowered by the law of that State to exercise elements of the governmental authority shall be considered an act of the State under international law, provided the person or entity is acting in that capacity in the particular instance.
The conduct of a person or group of persons shall be considered an act of a State under international law if the person or group of persons is in fact acting on the instructions of, or under the direction or control of, that State in carrying out the conduct.
Conduct which is not attributable to a State under the preceding articles shall nevertheless be considered an act of that State under international law if and to the extent that the State acknowledges and adopts the conduct in question as its own.
1. Necessity may not be invoked by a State as a ground for precluding the wrongfulness of an act not in conformity with an international obligation of that State unless the act:
(a) is the only way for the State to safeguard an essential interest against a grave and imminent peril; and
(b) does not seriously impair an essential interest of the State or States towards which the obligation exists, or of the international community as a whole.
2. In any case, necessity may not be invoked by a State as a ground for precluding wrongfulness if:
(a) the international obligation in question excludes the possibility of invoking necessity; or
(b) the State has contributed to the situation of necessity.
1. The State responsible for an internationally wrongful act is under an obligation to compensate for the damage caused thereby, insofar as such damage is not made good by restitution.
2. The compensation shall cover any financially assessable damage including loss of profits insofar as it is established.
UFG: UFG is the Claimant. It is a company incorporated under the laws of Spain, and (by "assignment") a contractual party to the SPA. It also owns just under 80% of SEGAS' shares. Mr J.M. Egea Krauel was UFG's Chairman from December 2009 onwards. In March 2010, Mr J. Sáez Ramírez was appointed UFG's Executive Vice-President for Supply and Operations. Both testified as factual witnesses in this arbitration.1
Egea Krauel WS; Tr. D2 482-552; Sáez Ramírez WS1 and WS2; Tr. D2 401-477.
Unión Fenosa decided from the beginning to create a local corporate vehicle, SEGAS, for the sole purpose of building, owning and operating the Damietta Plant. SEGAS was incorporated in Egypt in 2000. SEGAS does not itself own, purchase, or export gas but instead provides liquefaction services in exchange for the payment of a tolling fee. The fee is to be paid by UFG and EGAS as tollers (companies who own natural gas that is liquefied at the LNG plant) under two separate Tolling Contracts and is prorated on the basis of the gas quantities they have contracted to toll through the Plant. EGPC and EGAS each obtained 10% ownership of SEGAS; and EGAS obtained 51.98% of the Plant's production capacity for an initial four-year period and thereafter only up to 41.80% for the remaining contract years.5
(3) Selected Factual Chronology
The Supreme Council of the Petroleum Sector shall be constituted with the presidency of the Minister of Petroleum and the membership of:
The Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation;
The Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Public Petroleum Company
The Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Petroleum Gases Company16
The Petroleum Sector, in the application of this Decree, shall mean the following entities:
The Ministry of Petroleum, the Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation, and the petroleum public sector and common sector companies.17
In 1999, the Egyptian government declared that domestic demand had been met and encouraged the search for export markets.
In conjunction with that search, the Integrated Gas Strategy (1999) in Egypt was penned by Mr Sameh Fahmi, Petroleum Minister. It featured the creation of a 'Master Plan' which should remain valid through 2017. The Master Plan involves price optimization to attract investors, increased gas exports, and infrastructure development, qualified by six considerations:
1. An export ceiling - 25%> of total production;
2. No foreign or domestic gas operator may export gas from Egypt prior to investing in Egypt's domestic gas market;
3. Special incentives were established to encourage foreign and Egyptian Exploration & Production (E&P) companies to establish marketing franchises, in order to promote gas-based business within Egypt;
4. Incentives were also established to encourage diversification within the gas industry;
5. Exploration & Production (E&P) incentives were aimed to maintain a higher level of attractiveness, when compared with neighboring countries;
6. All businesses within Egypt - whether state-controlled, private, or mixed -were encouraged to convert to natural gas for energy needs.20
Reference to our telephone conversation at this week and with regard to the meeting held on Jan 10, 2000 with Mr Omar El-Koumy, ADGAS-U.A.E. regarding the Spanish company interest to construct LNG and Electrical Power Plant of 500 MW using local Egyptian natural gas, we would like to inform you that we have obtained the initial approval from the Egyptian government to [construct] such Project.
The power plant of 500 MW will be able to supply the LNG plant with the required electricity and the remaining capacity will be tied to the local national grid with mutual agreement on the prices of natural gas and supply of electricity to the national grid per KW.
We also can obtain long term supply of natural gas with a contract of 25 years renewable for another 25 years and so on. The price formula will be mutually agreed between the Egyptian government and the new company to be established to construct such project.
EATCO will secure all local land for the project and all local license for the project and also EATCO will be the local partner in this project.
I'm going to meet the minister of petroleum of Egypt on 23.1.2000 for arranging the meetings required with you and the Spanish company in this regard. We understand that the Spanish company will fund the project completely and will be able to utilize all LNG produced by this plant. We understand that the capacity of LNG will be in the range of 2.5 million metric tons per year.
The official gas price will be US50,041 per m3 of natural gas supplied to the battery limit of LNG [...]
Between January 26 and 30, a UNIÓN FENOSA delegation held a series of meetings for the purpose of gathering information and obtaining a clearer perception of the potential LNG project that had been presented to the management of UNIÓN FENOSA [...] we had a meeting with the Minister of Petroleum, Sameh Fahmy, who has openly confirmed the support of the Government of Egypt for this Project. The Minister mentioned during the meeting that other international groups had expressed an interest in the Project, and encouraged UNIÓN FENOSA to submit a proposal for negotiation (in case UNIÓN FENOSA was interested in the Project) shortly. Thus, in relation to this meeting with the Minister, we have summarized our impressions of him and our/the Minister's commitments:
- A young, active and ambitious Minister.
- He is very familiar with the gas business.
- Although he has been Minister for only a short time, he is eager to do a 'well-known' project in a short period of time.
- He has a personal interest in the project and entering the Spanish market.
- We have his support for the project and his commitment to provide the gas with a long-term contract of 20 to 25 years at a competitive price […]23
During the negotiations with UFACEX, which lasted for several months, no representatives from the Ministry of Petroleum or Government were present. EGPC was negotiating in its own name and independently, and all instructions to Committee members were made by EGPC representatives. I am not aware of any instructions given by the Ministry to the members of the Committee on the terms we negotiated with UFACEX, and as far as I know, the Ministry was not involved in these negotiations, nor was EGPC required to seek or obtain any approvals from the Ministry regarding these terms.25
Mr Antonio Hernando produced the draft letter to EATCO, for signature by Mr Eloy Álvarez, in which the request for additional information and for a possible meeting date of March 7 is repeated.
He also produced the draft MoU with EATCO which, with slight changes (postponement of the date of commitment to a pre-feasibility study and a fuller description of the tasks that EATCO undertakes to carry out in this first phase) will be used at the next meeting. He also produced a form Confidentiality Agreement between EATCO and UFACEX, which may be used as a model for work with engineers/consultants, who will be mentioned below.
The MoU with the Egyptian Authority is being drawn up as a draft in two different versions: depending on whether EATCO is simply an agent activating the project or more of an investor partner. This document may not be finalized until such time as these and other points of the agreements with EATCO have been defined […]
1. UFACEX is a Spanish Company working in the field of electricity and gas.
2. UFACEX is interested in entering in the market of [...] Egypt by means of […] developing, constructing and operating a single train of Liquefied Natural Gas Project (LNG Project) in Egypt.
3. EATCO has been rendering advisory and assistance services in Egypt for many years, EATCO is also investing in several projects in oil and petrochemical sector, and is interested in co-operating with UFACEX, in the above-mentioned LNG Project.
Both parties have met in Cairo on 26th-28th January 2000 and in Madrid on 8th-9th March 2000 and have agreed to study and analyse co-operating in the LNG Project. Both Parties agree to the following […]27
First of all, we would like to thank your Excellency for the opportunities we had to meet with you to discuss the LNG Project in Egypt. Since our last meeting on the 21st of March, and in accordance with your suggestions, we have moved forward, in co-operation with our Egyptian partner EATCO, in the development of this interesting project. [...] [O] ur understanding is that the support of the Egyptian Authorities and the commitments of our Companies could be established in terms of a Protocol or a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) […]28
The First Party [Mr Yehia El Komy] provided the required services for the establishment of this project. It introduced the Spanish Companies to the Egyptian Government through meetings with the Minister of Petroleum and other officials in the Egyptian Government. The First Party also played a main role in obtaining the required official approvals for the establishment of the projects, in addition to the raw natural gas supply approvals, the land allocation, and the coordination with official and financial entities for the establishment of the project.29
ARTICLE 2 - PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS MOU.
The purpose of this MOU is to determine the general framework of the Natural Gas Sale and Purchase Agreement and the responsibilities and commitments to be assumed by each Party with the aim to support the development of the Project. The Parties will cooperate and act in good faith and diligently to pursue the development of the Project.30
In successive visits to Egypt, we have completed a set of tasks aimed at establishing a framework of information upon which decisions can be made with respect to the LNG Project. […] The long-term supply of Natural Gas for the LNG Plant will come from the Government of Egypt's share [of gas] in the production of international operators through a longterm purchase contract (25 years extendable by another period of identical duration) with EGPC. [...] [I]n recent conversations with the Minister of Petroleum, the Minister stated that the interests of the Government of Egypt in relation to the export of gas are 12 bcm, out of which 4 of them would be exported through 'Pipeline’ and the rest as LNG.31
'LNG Facility’ Area: 1. The Management Committee is informed of the activities carried out over the last week by the Group responsible for Site analysis [...]33
Based on the request of the Spanish Unión Fenosa company to purchase the gas needed to produce about 4 million tons per annum; with the company to cover the costs of setting up the liquefaction and storage facilities and the shipping pier and to secure the necessary financing for this purpose; and with the company to also take care of the operations to transfer the liquefied natural gas to Spain; and with the responsibility of the Egyptian side being restricted to supplying gas in the quantities and specifications untilliquefaction.37
Agreement is to be reached on a sale price for the gas upon signing the final contract. [...]
At the end of the negotiations, agreement was reached between the two parties to implement the prices. This is considered to be a success for the petroleum sector in the field of pricing gas for export, [...] This contract has been signed in principle between the Egyptian General Petroleum Commission and the Unión Fenosa company on 15 July 2000, on condition that the competent authorities approve the agreements that have been made regarding the price of the gas, given the potential for this to contribute to the dollar currency returns earned by the petroleum sector […] This will increase with the average export ratios. […] [T]he matter is being submitted to the Board of Directors so that they may review and approve the draft agreement to sell gas to the Unión Fenosa company and begin the implementation procedures thereof.
Chairman of the Board of Directors. [Signature]. Engr. Mohammed Ibrahim Tawilah.38
Decision: after discussion, the board of directors of the Egyptian General Petroleum Commission reached the following decision:
1. To approve the contents of the memorandum [concerning the SPA and gas prices].
2. The Engr. / chairman of the Board of Directors of the [EGPC] , and the Engr. / deputy chairman of the Board of Directors of the [EGPC] are to be authorized to conclude the contractual procedures as required.
Endorsed, Minister of Petroleum. [Signature] 24 July 2000. Engr. Sameh Fahmi.39
In April 2000, Unión Fenosa […] requested to sign a contract on purchasing the Egyptian natural gas to manufacture, liquefy and export, and market it in Spain. In this framework, an understanding memorandum was [executed] between the Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation (EGPC) and Unión Fenosa in May […] During the landmark visit which was paid by His Excellency President Mohamed Hosni Mubarak to Spain and which supported the project within the framework of encouraging the economic cooperation between the two countries, and after signing the above mentioned memorandum, intensive negotiations were carried out between the two parties. The negotiations lasted till after the termination of the visit and they aimed to sign the gas sales agreement and implement the first project for natural gas liquefaction and export in the history of Egypt. […]
The above mentioned table shows that the agreed upon prices for the sale of natural gas to Unión Fenosa company are in the range of international prices.
In light of the foregoing, the matter is submitted before the Council of Ministers to kindly approve the following:
- signing a contract with the Spanish Company Unión Fenosa to purchase a quantity of natural gas estimated to be about 4 billion cubic meters per year for 25 years of a total quantity estimated to be about 3.5 trillion cubic feet of gas […] according to the conditions and prices mentioned in the memorandum to be paid in dollars.44
Signing a [n agreement] with Unión Fenosa Company to develop a project for the liquefaction of natural gas for export to Spain […] Thus, H.E the Prime Minister wrapped up the meeting at 3:30 p.m. He thanked the members of the Cabinet and wishes them continued success.45
I have the honor to inform you that we have negotiated with the Spanish company after the Cabinet meeting in a final attempt to improve the maximum price as per the proposed equation for the sale of Egyptian gas and in light of the desire of the Spanish company to closely cooperate with the Egyptian government, the negotiations succeeded and the company agreed to improve the maximum price to be increased by25% […] The Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation has signed the contract with the Spanish Company Unión Fenosa S.A. according to the above mentioned and the main conditions which were stated in the memorandum submitted to the Cabinet. I take this opportunity to congratulate His Excellency President Hosni Mubarak and you for signing the first contract in Egypt's history to export the Egyptian gas.46
I would like to present to you a summary of the meeting held with the CHIYODA company (Mr Nagata and Mr Kenzo Ukibe) on the preliminary UFG assessment of potential sites for an LNG plant in Egypt.48
The role of the Egyptian Petroleum sector: Sale and supply of gas in the quantities and specifications required to the liquefaction facilities at the project's site in northern Egypt, at a price paid in hard currency and ranging from 0.75-1.25 USD MMBTU […] Attached is a table [that] indicates the sale prices of natural gas which is distributed […] in some countries competing with Egypt. The prices are almost identical to the price of selling gas to liquefaction units […]
The Project was submitted to the Economic Commission of the Board of Directors of the Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation and approved on 20/7/2000. The Economic Commission recommended consulting the board of the Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation in this regard and the board approved the project in its 12th session on 20/7/2000. The Project was also submitted to the Council of Ministers and the council approved the project on 25/7/2000.49
WHEREAS, Buyer intends to contract with Seller for the firm supply and transportation by Seller of NG to the Complex, in which the NG will be liquefied and transformed into liquefied natural gas ('LNG'), to be exported for sale to Spain and other territories.
Section 5.1. Seller shall at all times keep a back up supply to meet an on stream (load) factor of 95% of the LNG Complex.
Section 23.2. Adequacy of Supply. Seller is the sole responsible [party] for securing adequate supplies of N [atural] G [as] for performance of its obligations hereunder. Seller shall, throughout the Term, provide Buyer or Lenders with such further assurances as Buyer or Lenders may reasonably request from time to time regarding the continued adequacy of N [atural] G [as] supply sources relied upon by Seller to perform hereunder.
Section 24.3. Adequacy of Supply of N [atural] G [as]. Seller is aware that the supply of N [atural] G [as] to Buyer under this Agreement is a key element for the successful development of the Project, and therefore Seller represents and warrants that its availability of NG will be sufficient to feed the Complex under the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Also Seller represents and warrants that it has, and will have during the Term, all the legal, administrative and corporate rights, licenses and authorizations to deliver the N [atural] G [as] at the Delivery Point and to comply with all its obligations under this Agreement.
15.3 Failure of Market.
(b) In the case of the Seller, Force Majeure shall not include changes in market conditions including, without limitation, changes that:
(i) Directly o [r] indirectly affect the demand for or price of N [atural] G [as].
(ii) Result in the diversion of N [atural] G [as] to other users.
(iii) Are due to the inability of the transportation system and/or pipeline (whether for reasons of maintenance, repairs or lack of capacity or otherwise) to meet consumer demand and/or Buyer demand.
Section 21.1. EGPC's support to the Project. EGPC undertakes to procure that the Egyptian authorities undertake not to interfere with the rights of Buyer under this Agreement, and not to dictate or promulgate any act or regulation which could directly or indirectly affect the rights of Buyer under this Agreement, or affect the capacity of Buyer [sic] to perform its obligations under this Agreement, even in the case of a N [atural] G [as] shortage in Egypt, save for Force Majeure as defined in this Agreement.
EGPC shall also assist and actively collaborate with Buyer to obtain any authorization and/or legal, administrative or governmental benefit to Buyer for the Project and/or the construction of the Complex.58
According to the relevant laws applicable in the Arab Republic of Egypt, the Egyptian Petroleum Corporation is entitled to execute the [SPA] [...]
No law, ordinance, statutes or regulations of the Arab Republic of Egypt or of any local authority applicable to or binding on EGPC or by which EGPC will become bound [...] will be violated by the execution and delivery of the [SPA].59
On behalf of the Ministry of Petroleum I have the pleasure to inform you that the Egyptian Government official [sic: officially] endorsed the natural gas Sales and Purchase Agreement signed on August 1st, 2000 between UFACEX and EGPC [...]60
The agreement's purpose is:
I. UFACEX is exploring the commercial feasibility of building, owning and operating a natural gas liquefaction facility within the area of and adjacent to the Damietta Port, such complex to comprise special facilities for the transmission, processing, storing, loading and shipping of supplies of natural gas and exports of liquefied natural gas within the Damietta Port site.
II. To this effect, UFACEX, subsequent to the execution of a Memorandum of Understanding of May 17 2000, with the EGYPTIAN GENERAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION (EGPC), have executed on August 1 2000, a Natural Gas Sale and Purchase Agreement with the EGPC for an initial period of 25 years to be extended under mutual agreement to an additional period of 25 years.
This liquefaction complex may also include power generation facilities.
According to such Agreement, the commencement of supply on natural gas shall take place on the second half of year 2004.61
Article 1 — Subject of the Agreement:
The First Party hereby’ undertakes and agrees to grant the right to use to the Second Party, which accepts to acquire it, regarding an area located at Damietta Port, Egypt. This area shall be defined by’ reference to: (I) The area offered by the First Party as described in the map attached as Exhibit 4 to this Agreement and (H) that area marked with horizontal stripes as UF process area within the northern boundaries defined by points A, D, E, F, and G in Exhibit 5 to this Agreement. Both Exhibits 4 and 5 shall describe the area of this Agreement (The Area). The Area shall be surrounded by a wall made of bricks, similar to those available inside the Port.
Article 2 — Object:
The Second Party shall have the right to use the Area to build, own and operate a natural gas liquefaction facility (Complex), for the purpose of transmitting, processing, storing, loading and shipping supplies of natural gas and exports of liquefied natural gas by’ the Second Party’. Such Complex shall also include other facilities such as jetty, a flue gas flare, power generation facilities, and others that might be convenient.63
In a new meeting held in Cairo (October 18th, 2000) between EGPC (Mahmoud Latif Amer), GASCO (TBA), Mr Yehya El Komi and other member[s] of our company, [it] was said [to] us that [...] [technical details regaiding the gas supply].64
In a letter to EGPC, Unión Fenosa requests further meetings to resolve technical details about the gas to be supplied, saying:
[W]e would like to have a meeting next Tuesday October 31 - 2000 at 10.00 a.m. hour between EGPC, GASCO, EATCO, UFACEX and our CONTRACTOR (CHIYODA Corp.). [...]
Mr Yehya El Komi shall be in contact with you or Mr Hassan Akl to confirm and prepare this meeting."65
[I]n order to progress with our project we will thank you if you could officially inform us about the steps to be done in order to obtain the necessary approvals in front of the Egyptian Authorities to construct our LNG plant in Damietta site (what kind of documents have to be done and the Egyptian Authorities to present these).66
With reference to The Cabinet's approval in its session [...] that [SEGAS)] [...] subject to the provision of the Free Zone regime (under formation) to construct, operate and transfer A Specialized Petroleum' Jetty in accordance with (BOT) system for handling, loading, unloading and export liquefied Natural Gas and petroleum products according to (BOT) system in compliance with the provisions of the Law No. 22 of 1998 which amended Law No. 1 of 1996 issued regarding specialized ports in order to serve the project of establish, owns and operate a complex for Natural Gas liquefactions and export thereof [...]69
Based on the License Basis signed between Damietta Port Authority’ and [SEGAS], as an affiliate of UFACEX, on December 6, 2000 for the building, ownership, operating and transfer of a specialized petroleum Jetty’... and to build, operate and own a natural gas liquefaction plant, in an area of land owned and administered by’ Damietta Port Authority.
And with regard to the above and the preliminary approval by the Egyptian Cabinet to such project, issued on February’ 6, 2001 and the final one signed by the Cabinet on March 17, 2001.71
[I]n order to go ahead with our project we will thank you if you could officially inform us about the steps to be done in order to obtain the necessary’ approvals in front of the Egyptian Authorities to construct the LNG plant in Damietta site (what kind of documents have to be done and the Egyptian Authorities to present these).75
And with regard to the above and the preliminary approval by the Egyptian Cabinet to such project, issued on February 6, 2001 and the final one signed by the Cabinet on March 17, 2001.78
Firstly: The committee ha[s] examined the following documents:
1. The resolution of committee formation No. 116 of 2001.
2. Hand-over report of the land from the New Communities Authority dated 25/3/2001. (Annex no. 1)
3. Cabinet Decree No. 335 of 2001 granting license for concession to construct a specialized jetty and approving the project.
4. License issued by Damietta Port Authority and the annexes thereof regarding the landplot for the project.
5. The attached map signed by DPA and SEGAS, which specifies the boundaries.
6. And according to the minutes of meetings held between the two parties regarding hand-over of the landplot and evacuation thereof from occupations, relocation and construction of the fence and the documents relating to all such matters and other related matters.80
Please find attached hereto the following documents [...] A photocopy of the Business Registry document (provided by Yehia El Komi) [...]81
Reference to your Fax [...] concerning the agenda of the proposed meeting in Cairo next week, we would like to emphasize the following:
1. Gas supply to the first train will be 450 MMSCFD equivalent to 4 bcm as per article 4 of the contract which may have been repeatedly communicated with you in several occasions.
2. EGPC participation of 10% in Damietta LNG plant is based on the concept that EGPC will be the only Egyptian shareholder in this project.
Mr Fernández Martínez testified:
During the EPC Bid Process in 2001, the two consortiums that we considered recommended increasing the capacity of the LNG train to 7.56 Bcm instead of 4.4 Bcm as originally agreed. This would allow a large increase in capacity with almost the same initial investment and equivalent operating costs because of significant economies of scale. We proposed the increase in the size of the project and the Ministry of Petroleum agreed, repeatedly assuring UFG that Egypt had ample gas supply to accommodate expanded capacity and approved the expansion. Later, in 2002, UFG offered Egypt the opportunity to participate directly in the Damietta Project and thus monetize Egypt's natural gas resources by selling LNG directly on the international market. The Government expressed its interest in having EGAS and EGPC buy this increased capacity.82
Article 2: The said company shall be vested with the status of juridical [legal] personality and shall be considered a [private] person of the Special Law.
Article 3: The Minister of Petroleum shall be the minister concerned with applying the provisions of [...] Law No. 203 of the year 1991 concerning this company and the affiliated companies [...]
Article 4: The Company's purpose shall be to operate in all activities of natural gas, and it shall in particular have power to:
(1) Promote and merchandise gas activities investments;
(2) Propose the plans for natural gas industries and projects;
(5) Assume the management and supervision work on gas activity as shall be determined by the Minister of Petroleum; [...]
Article 5: The Company shall be powered to invest its property and funds by itself or through its affiliated companies. [...]
Article 6: The management of the company shall be assumed by a board of directors to be formed [...] upon the proposition of the Minister of Petroleum [...]
Article 7: The Board of Directors is the higher authority controlling the company's affairs and disposal of its matters. It may adopt whatever decisions it deems necessary toward realizing the purpose for which the company is established and within the context of the targets, plans and general policies of the State.
Article 8: The Company's general assembly shall be formed under the chairmanship of the Minister of Petroleum [...] to be selected by virtue of a decree of the Prime Minister upon the proposition of the Minister of Petroleum [...]
Article 11: The Company's property shall be considered privately owned state-property. The company shall settle the annual profits [...] to the Ministry of Finance.
Article 12: The Company's articles of association shall determine its duration. This shall be issued by virtue of a decree of the Minister of Petroleum [...]83
According with our meeting held on September 4th, in which we commented about the evacuation of the Military Base that occupies [...] the Damietta site which also coincide with the location of the LNG Storage Tank No. 1.
Up to date we have not received any response from the militaries after the meeting held on September 4th in Damietta, I beg your best efforts in order to cause the evacuation of the base and not take any longer concerning the construction of the LNG plant.85
After our meeting held on October 16, 2001, I would like to mention again that the military housing that occupies one part of the site over which the Plant is being built has not been removed... we kindly ask for your best efforts in order to solve this matter as soon as possible.86
We would like to thank you for your brief technical presentation [...] concerning Unión Fenosa technical evaluation of the EPC contract offers [...] [W] e [are] still waiting for more information and or clarifications to enable us [to] draw a conclusion regarding your recommendation to award the EPC contract.87
[I]n view of the interest that you showed when you visited our GNL Plant at Damietta Port on October 31, 2001, I feel bound to advise you that the military housing occupying part of the land on which the Plant is being built has not yet been removed. [...] We therefore beg your cooperation in solving this problem as soon as possible. There is no disagreement as to the terms of evacuation; all that is required is an order to carry it out.89
In regard of our meeting held on October 31, 2001 at Damiet [t] a, I would like to mention again that the military housing that occupies one part of the land over which the GNL plant [is] being built has not been removed... As you know, the Port Authorities have provided a new site for the Military housing [...] and [...] we kindly ask for your best efforts in order to solve this matter as soon as possible.90
The Spanish Egyptian Gas Company (SEGAS) is licensed to carry out its activities in the Private Free Zone [...] The duration of this license is 25 years, could be extended after the approval of GAFI. [...]
The Company shall be bound by the rules of the Investment Law No. 8 of 1997 and its executive regulations, as well as all the current and future decisions regulating Free Zones [...] "91
It is important to emphasize the reference that is made about the official signing ceremony of the EPC Contract, awarded to the consortium formed by Hallibu[rt]on KBR (formerly Kellogg Brown & Root), Japan Gasoline Compa[n]y Co. and Técnicas Reunidas S.A., as per the unanimous agreement of SEGAS Board of Directors held on September 20, 2001. The signing ceremony took place on December 19, 2001.92
Through  the Damietta's Port Authority we have maintained several meetings, some of them, being attended by Militaries in Charge, reaching an agreement in which we would take care of the expenses that this military housing re-location may originate, and the Port Authorities would provide them a new site inside the Damietta's Port. [...]
[O]ur situation right now is critical and if this relocation does not occur on an immediate date, there would be a delay on the starting up of the plant with the consequent detriment for both countries, Spain and Egypt, and will entail a loss of income from the GNL sale. [...] [O]n the practice of your responsibilities as Minister of Defence of the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt, I kindly ask for your intervention, [i]n the knowledge that in your hands is the solution to this issue, that although small for your responsibilities, is of great significance for the well being of the project that we consider of great interest and importance for both countries.93
EATCO, however, have only offset credits to SEGAS [...] in the amount of 651,033 US $, and has made a direct disbursement of 548,967 USS which represent a total amount of 1,200,000 USS. EATCO, therefore, still remains liable to the Company in the amount of 3,120,000 USS. [...] Accordingly, EATCO is required by the Board to fund the amount of 3,120,000 US Dollars immediately.95
[W]e have received the confirmation of the evacuation of the military base, located on our site at the Port of Damietta [...] I want to thank you in a very special way, [for] the effort carried out and the interest shown to this matter, in order to achieve finally that the site is totally free to begin the construction [...]
I would like to emphasize the relevance of this event due to the fact that it avoids any interference for the development of this important project for both, Egypt and Spain.102
Once on receipt of the confirmation of the military base evacuation from our site at the Port of Damietta, and being aware of your continuous dedication, efforts and personal intervention in order to make possible the beginning our LNG tank no 1 construction, I want to show you my most sincere gratitude.
I would like to emphasize the relevance of this event that prevents us from any interference on the development of this important project for both, Egypt and Spain.103
[B]y means of this letter[,] we hereby notify you that effective as of August 2001, of the following:
1. The Egyptian Natural Gas Holding Company (EGAS) a Petroleum entity incorporated by law No. 203 of 1991 has been fully assigned by EGPC, in executing the SPA […]112
[W]e hereby notify you [of] UFI's intention to assign the SPA [...] to UFGas and we request from you...your written permission for such assignment of the SPA, and of all [of] UFI's rights and obligations under the SPA, to UF Gas […]113
The purpose and effect of this Agreement is to set forth the terms and conditions that will govern the participation by EGPC and EGAS in SEGAS and the collaboration between the Parties in the development of the Plant.115
Reference is made to the letter of Mr Antonio Basagoiti addressed to HE. Sameh Fahmy Minister of Petroleum, concerning his proposed institutional visit to Egypt. In this regard, I have the pleasure to inform you that Mr Basagoiti's appointment with H.E. the Prime Minister has been scheduled on Tuesday, Sep[t]. 2nd, 2003.119
The visit is confirmed by return fax from UFG:
I would like to reconfirm the visit of our Chairman, Mr Antonio Basagoiti, to H.E. the Prime Minister next Tuesday 2nd of September in Cairo.
If possible, we would like to take this opportunity to meet also H.E. Sameh Fahmy, Minister of Petroleum on Tuesday 2nd of September.
I would like to inform you as well, that Mr Basagoiti will visit the installations under [...] construction of the GNL plant in Damietta on Wednesday 3rd of September.120
Once again in Madrid after the visit to Damietta, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to show you our LNG Plant, where you could appreciate the magnitude of the Project and the progress of the construction works [...] As you can understand, dear Mohamed, now it is extremely important, as I had the opportunity to comment with you and with H.E. the Minister last Thursday in Damietta, to make a final effort in order to achieve that the Participation Agreement and the Tolling Contract enter in full force before the end of March, as it is agreed.121
2.15. The Parties agree to remove from the UFGas Tolling Contract the definition of 'Premium ROE' and, accordingly, all references to such term (as defined in the UFGas Tolling Contract) shall be removed from the UFGas Tolling Contract.
2.16. The definition of the term 'Basic ROE' as provided for in Article 1 (Definitions and Interpretation) of the UFGas Tolling Contract is amended and restated to read as follows:
'Basic ROE means 11%'124
EGAS and SEGAS make the same amendments to their Tolling Contract:
2.17. The Parties agree to remove from the EGAS Tolling Contract the definition of 'Premium ROE' and, accordingly, all references to such term (as defined in the EGAS Tolling Contract) shall be removed from the EGAS Tolling Contract.
2.18. The definition of the term 'Basic ROE' as provided for in Article 1 (Definitions and Interpretation) of the EGAS Tolling Contract is amended and restated to read as follows:
'Basic ROE means 11%'125
On the basis of the Board of Directors and the Extraordinary General Assembly resolutions we will then obtain the relevant GAFI Decree and Commercial Registration, after which EGAS and EGPC will become officially shareholders of SEGAS and their representatives will be formally appointed as Board Members.126
The required documents, according with the Laws and Regulations of Egypt, were presented to GAFI in order to obtain the approval of the increase of capital issue. As soon as we will obtain this approval from GAFI, we will immediately present the documentation to the Commercial Register, in order to register the modification of the Articles of Incorporation.
We are doing our best efforts to finalise the participation process in accordance with the Egyptian Laws and Regulations as soon as possible.127
A news article at the time reports:
Egypt's first shipment of liquefied natural gas (LNG) left the port of Damietta for Spain yesterday, opening up a new export sector crucial to the country's economic future.129
As you are aware of, pursuant to the Agreement dated 20 April 2005, SEGAS, EGAS and UFGas have agreed that the Commercial Start Date of the Damietta LNG Plant shall take place after the date of signature of such Agreement (this is, after 20 April 2005).130
President Hosni Mubarak, accompanied by Dr Ahmed Nazif, the Prime Minister and Eng. Sameh Fahmy Minister of Petroleum, inaugurated on Monday 30 May, 2005 the first LNG facility in Egypt located in Damietta in Mubarak Complex for Natural Gas and Petrochemicals.131
EGPC reports directly to the Egyptian Minister of Petroleum, which has ultimate responsibility for exploitation of all mineral resources of the Arab Republic of Egypt. All decisions of the Board of Directors are required to be notified to the Minister of Petroleum for approval [...]133
Following the recent conversations held in Cairo, our companies are ready to carry on a deep analysis and to significantly contribute to the further implementation of an energy saving programme in the power generation and industrial sector in Egypt. [...]
His Excellency, our companies have significant know-how in CCGT power stations, in the repowering of existing facilities and in energy saving programme. We are ready to make available this know how and to cooperate with Your staff as well as all the concerned Egyptian Authorities and related Companies for the implementation of the programme. [...]
His Excellency we are ready to arrange for a meeting with Your experts and representatives at Your earliest convenience in order to start the proposed activities […]137
As you are aware of, a Force Majeure event was notified to you under the Tolling Contracts on July 11, 2005. In this respect, as anticipated in the last BoD of SEGAS we are glad to formally notify you that the Force Majeure event has been removed. Therefore the Commercial Start Date of the plant will be at 00:00 of September 1, 2006, as agreed in the last BoD of SEGAS.138
I refer to our discussions that took place regarding holding a meeting to discuss terms and conditions of the Sale and Purchase Agreement for Damietta Train 1.
In this respect, please advise your availability during 30th and 31st October 2006, if required 31st October, to hold said meetings in Madrid, Spain […]139
Tolling Contracts provide that, as from the Commercial Operation Date (COD), and not before, the Annual Delivery Program (ADP) shall be set, according to [which] the production amounts corresponding to each Toller out of the production capacity of the Plant and their respective contracted capacity under each TC are determined.
COD has been set on the 15 th of October 2006, according to the letter sent by SEGAS to the Tollers on the 21st of September 2006.140
An[n]ex 1. Summary Table:
From 01-01-2007 to 01-07-2007:
If Brent >=33 USD/Bbl → 0,25 USD/MMBtu,
From 01-07-2007 to Commercial Start Date of Train 2, or 1 January 2012, whichever comes earlier:
If Brent >= 33 USD/Bbl → 0,25 USD/MMBtu, or
If Brent >=38 USD/Bbl → 0,375 USD/MMBtu, or
If Brent >=43 USD/Bbl → 0,50 USD/MMBtu,
From to Commercial Start Date of Train 2, or 1 January 2012, whichever comes earlier:
If Brent >= 33 USD/Bbl → 0,25 USD/MMBtu, or
If Brent >=38 USD/Bbl → 0,375 USD/MMBtu, or
If Brent >=43 USD/Bbl → 0.50 USD/MMBtu. or
If Brent >=48 USD/Bbl → 0,60 USD/MMBtu, or
If Brent >= 53 USD/Bbl → 0,70 USD/MMBtu.141
In mid 2000 and before signing the contract with Unión Fenosa and through the final negotiations carried out with His Excellency’ Eng. the Minister of Petroleum, the first adjustment to the price equation was made with an increase to the maximum limit to reach 1.25 USD in case the price of Brent crude is more than 24 dollar/barrel [...] In addition to the above mentioned and within the framework of the instructions of Eng./ Minister of Petroleum to improve the terms of the contract signed with Unión Fenosa, a contract was signed with the company to increase the energy of the liquefaction plant to reach approximately 7 BCM annually [...] In the framework of the efforts which you have exerted in this regard based on your instructions to continue the negotiations with Unión Fenosa to introduce a new adjustment on the price equation of national gas (second adjustment) which is supplied to the company to be liquefied in favor of its interest in Damietta liquefaction plant in light of the current increase in the international prices of energy.
Eng. Hani Suleiman, the First Under-Secretary of the Ministry of Petroleum, and Eng. Sherif Ismail, Chairman of Egyptian Natural Gas Holding Company (EGAS) made an official visit to Spain during the period from 29-31st October, 2006. Several meetings were held with the officials of Unión Fenosa Company and after extensive discussions and negotiations for the adjustment of the maximum price which was determined by 1,25 USD\MMBTU in the original contract signed in August 2000, the negotiations were recently resumed […]142
The loss of production that we have experienced in the last months, due to lack of feed gas, is causing Unión Fenosa Gas a significant impact that gets worse during the months when the demand increases due to low temperatures in the winter season, and this prevents us from meeting the committed supplies with our clients in the Spanishmarket. [...]
Understanding and appreciating the continuous efforts of EGAS to improve the feed gas to Damietta, once again, I would like to ask you for a new effort in order to increase the feed gas to Damietta […]143
Reference is made to your letter dated January 26th, 2007, concerning the feed gas to Damietta LNG Plant and your analysis for the production profile for 2006 and the production plan for 2007, please be informed that EGAS exert[s] its best endeavor[s] to improve the feed gas supply to Damietta LNG Plant [...]145
Article One - The board of directors of the Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation shall be presided by the Minister of Petroleum and the membership of: - Minister of Finance; Minister of Electricity and Energy; Minister of Investment; Minister of Trade and Industry; Minister of State for Local Development [...] Three [members] with expertise in the main activities of the Corporation from the employees of the Ministry of Petroleum and its affiliated authorities to be appointed under a resolution by the board of directors upon the proposal of the Minister ofPetroleum.147
A gas supply-demand gap emerges in the short-term (in 2009/2010) and therefore it is very important that progress is made on signing upstream GSAs and sanctioning new development projects this year. There is enough discovered gas to be developed until 2017/2018, after which point yet-to-find (undiscovered) reserves will need to be produced. [...]
In order to ensure supply to the LNG plant to the end of the loan tenor in 2022, some 26 tcf reserves need to be discovered and developed by 2016/2017, assuming that no further LNG exports are sanctioned. This is equivalent to an average annual discovery rate of 2.6 tcf/year over the next 10 years, which is lower than the average discovery rate of 4 tcf/year seen over the last 5 years. [...]
Wood Mackenzie has not performed any geological studies to establish if this level of reserves can reasonably be found in the timeframes required for the SEGAS Project but if exploration drilling and success rates are maintained at previous levels and new fields are developed in a timely manner then Wood Mackenzie believes that this target can be met.150 [...] Wood Mackenzie has reviewed EGAS' data and in light of its experience in analysing Egypt's energy market and forecasting gas demand worldwide, we believe EGAS' gas forecast to be reasonable.151
I would like to analyse again with you the situation concerning the feed gas supply to Damietta, that we have been experiencing during the first part of the current year 2007 and that will become even worse during the rest of the year 2007, according to the fax received from EGAS informing SEGAS about the forecasted gas supplies for the next months (June to August) [...]
Understanding the continuous efforts of EGAS to improve the feed gas to Damietta, once again, I kindly ask you a further effort in order to increase the feed gas supply to Damietta, thus, allowing Unión Fenosa Gas to meet its commitments with the customers, recovering at the same time the production lost and fulfilling the Annual Delivery Program of 78 ships established for year 2007.152
[K]indly be informed that Quality Communications Productions (QCP) is currently preparing a report for the Economist magazine entitled 'The Gateway to Opportunity'. The objective of this report is to inform on the latest developments and opportunities in the Oil & Gas sector, communicating our position to the world, marketing our competitive advantages to the international community, while at the same time reinforcing the idea of Egypt as an ideal investments venue.
This report will feature, through professional and top quality in terms of both content and design, not only the government and state holding companies, but also the private sector companies, both Egyptian and multinational, who are behind the success of Egypt's Oil, Gas & Petrochemicals industry.
The Editor-in-Chief [...][and] the Project Director [...] are now working on the report. They will contact you to further explain technical & commercial advantages of participating in this report. [We] would appreciate it if you could spare some time for this important issue.156
UFG agrees to co-operate.157
In mid-2000, before signing the contract with Unión Fenosa and through the final negotiations carried out with His Excellency the Engineer Egyptian Petroleum Minister, the price equation was first adjusted as the maximum increased to 1.25 USD in case the price of Brent crude is more than 24 USD/barrel [...]
In light of the instructions of the Eng/the Minister of Petroleum to improve the terms of the Contract with Unión Fenosa, it was agreed with the Company in June 2003 on the exploitation of the surplus capacity of the liquefaction factory in order for the Petroleum Sector to benefit from a percentage up to 50% from the total capacity of the factory which decreases gradually to reach 42% during the initial five years of operation [...]
In light of this agreement, which allows the Petroleum Sector to liquefy the gas owned by the State and sell same according to international prices maximizing the revenues for Egypt, the average price of exporting the Egyptian share of the liquefied gas from the liquefaction factory in Damietta during 2005/2006 has reached around 5.7 USD/MMBTU. [...] Moreover, such investments exist in Egyptian territories, and the replacement value is estimated by approximately 2.3 billion dollars in addition to what the establishment of the plant in the free zone area in Damietta represents of economic and social development and employing of Egyptian labour and operating ancillary and assisting activities to the project in the governorate, all of which represent direct and indirect economic returns to the Egyptian economy. This matter is submitted for your consideration and guidance [...]158
Rachid Mohamed Rachid, minister of trade and industry, says he and his colleagues are not projecting a gas shortage and the government has moved to curb energy demand by raising prices for industrial purchasers or off-takers. But he concedes demand is growing very fast.
'We are not expecting gas shortages in the short term. We have laid out the energy policy and the pricing strategy for the next 15 years. The reality is that we are growing much faster than we expected. The increase in energy consumption is growing at double-digits,'Mr Rachid said.159
In mid-2000, before signing the contract with Unión Fenosa Gas and through the final negotiations carried out with His Excellency Engineer the Egyptian Petroleum Minister, the price quotation was first adjusted as the maximum increased to 1.25 USD in case the price of Brent crude is more than 24 USD/barrel [...]
In addition to the above mentioned and in the framework of the instructions of the Minister of Petroleum to improve the terms and conditions of the contract signed with Unión Fenosa Company, a contract was signed with the company to increase the capacity of the liquefaction plant with annual energy estimated by 7 BCM/annum. Petroleum sector benefits of that by a proportion up to 50% although the contribution of the sector whose investment was estimated by 1.3 billion USD in the project has been limited to only 20% [...]
In the framework of the efforts which you have exerted in this regard and based on your instructions to complete negotiations with Unión Fenosa Company to introduce new amendment on the price equation of natural gas (second amendment) which is supplied to the company to be liquefied in favor of Damietta liquefaction plant in light of the current increase in the international prices of energy.
Eng. Hani Suleiman, the First Under-Secretary of the Ministry of Petroleum, and Eng. Sherif Ismail, Chairman of Egyptian Natural Gas. Holding Company (EGAS) made an official visit to Spain during the period from 29-31st October 2006. They held several meetings with the officials in Unión Fenosa Company and after extensive discussions and negotiations in order to adjust the maximum price which was determined by 1.25 USD\MMBTU in the original contract signed in August 2000, negotiations have recently resumed [...]161
EGAS [...] commits to supply the under-supplied quantities which the Seller [EGAS] failed or will fail to deliver to UFGas in relation to the full entitlement of UFGas of Contract Year 2008 [...] according to an annual recovery program in such a manner that UFGas shall recover all such quantities, starting in the year 2009 and ending before December 31, 2012.166
Following the principles of agreement reached during the last visit to Madrid and the side letter (SPA) signed on July 11th, 2008. Please be informed that, based on the concerned authorities' approval pertaining the concept of the above mentioned documents, UFGas is kindly requested to activate the new applied gas prices effective of July 1st, 2008 [. ]167
UFGas is specially affected by this situation [falling feedgas supply] in such a manner that UFGas' gas reserves have been reduced dramatically and cannot face its customers' firm contractual commitments, and more than that is not able to satisfy the Spanish Regulator provisions. This will negatively impact on the image of UFGas in the Spanish gas market as well as on the image of Egypt as a gas supplier country to the Spanish market.
We would also like to remind you of the recent agreement reached between UFGas and EGAS in July 2008 by means of which EGAS is bound to supply at least 15 LNG cargoes in the 2nd half of year 2008.168
First of all I would like to thank you very much for the valuable time you gave to me and to my colleagues on October 16th in your office. I am so pleased with the very open and candid discussion we had and your consistent support of our joint successful SEGAS LNG project. In the past, with your great vision, we managed to build together the first LNG project in Egypt and to penetrate the first European LNG market for the Egyptian gas. Today you made us comfortable that SEGAS project will continue its success with your extended support and our mutual cooperation to maintain a satisfactory agreement for both countries, Egypt and Spain [...]169
Regarding the miss-supply of gas to UFG due to shutdown of Burullus gas fields from November 21st to December 2nd, and taking into consideration the total gas volumes received by UFG at the end of the year 2008, we are willing to meet [to] try [...] to reach a satisfactory agreement for the Parties, including all the pending issues that we have still on the table. To this purpose, and in line with the general principles commented in the meetings held on October 16th with H.E. the Minister of Petroleum, and on October 15th with you, I would like to propose the following wording for [...] the Side Letter in order to close it:
'Every month, starting from April 1st 2009, if the average of the six preceding month of the monthly quotations of Brent exceed 15$/bbl or fall below 98$/bbl, the Parties shall meet and review this scheme set forth hereby.'170
A Cairo court on Tuesday overruled the Egyptian government's decision to allow exports of natural gas to Israel and said the constitution gave parliament the right to decide on sales of natural resources.171
The global financial crisis that began in 2008 made investors unwilling to start new natural gas exploration projects. In light of global economic uncertainty and the high cost of development, many investors postponed exploration and development activities, particularly offshore, which accounts for about 80% of Egypt's gas production.173
The petroleum sector pursues a balanced policy by allocating one-third of the natural gas reserves for domestic consumption and a maximum one-third for export while keeping the remaining reserves for future generations.174
We feel it is necessary to draw your immediate attention to the operational requirements and associated risks that the shortfall of gas supply is generating in SEGAS LNG Plant. Recent circumstances of availability of gas to SEGAS have reached to a point where Owner must notify the impossibility to maintain the stable operation of the Plant if this situation is repeated and comes to stay for a continuous period.177
The situation of the gas supply to Damietta LNG plant is dramatically worsening day by day, facing the risk of a shutdown of the plant due to a gas supply below the minimum flow threshold. This fact will cause, inter alia, a very negative impact at international level on the reputation in terms of reliability of all the Parties involved in the Project. Therefore I suggest arranging a meeting in Cairo at your earliest convenience to agree an action plan in order to overcome the present problems.178
In the same time and considering the difficulties caused by the big delays in the upstream development plans associated with the international economic crisis, EGAS has thoroughly discussed this serious issue with the upstream parties in the way to accelerate those development plans in order to add valuable gas quantities to the present system which is the key solution for all problems caused by lack of gas supply for SEGAS and all other consumers as well.179
As shown in our presentation [...] the feed gas shortfall has been increasing during the last months, with a mere 50 % compliance of the ADP in January 2010, and is having a huge impact on UFGas' cost structure.
The attached presentation notes:
Reputable international sources suggest a relevant increase in Egyptian gas exports, whilst the supply to Damietta LNG Plant has been dramatically reduced.180
A Cairo court on Saturday gave the Egyptian government legal clearance to allow natural gas exports to Israel, cancelling a lower court's verdict to stop exports.
The Higher Administrative Court, an appeals court for cases involving the state, also ruled Egypt should monitor the price and quantity of its exports and ensure it met local energy needs before exporting.
[...] 'It is not within the jurisdiction of the courts to hear appeals against the government's decision to export gas to eastern Mediterranean markets, including Israel,' said Mohamed Husseini, who chaired the court's meeting.
The state's decision to export gas to Israel was 'sovereign,' he said.182
As agreed during the meeting I am sending to you a copy of our presentation that summarises the main subjects under discussion, i.e. current gas supply, recovery plan and pricing issues, as better detailed here below.
In respect of the gas supply, UFGas appreciates EGAS' effort to improve feed gas supply from the 1Q levels to around 500 mmscfd (67% of the ADP) during the first days of April 2010, as well as EGAS' commitment to ramp up supply in the coming years and to achieve supply up to nominal plant capacity in 2013 and onwards.184
EGAS has planned this Recovery Program by assigning to UFGas all potentially expected excess production starting from 2014 to last till the full recovery achieved. Additionally, the priority will be given to UFGas in any capacity not being exploited by the third party gas entitled to EGAS capacity after BG/Petronas contracts' expiry.185
At 15:00 hr today SEGAS Operations got a phone call from EGAS [Toller Representative at SEGAS LNG Plant in Damietta] requesting to immediately proceed cutting the feed gas, stopping the production and maintaining the Plant in total recirculation under the threat of grid operator closing the feed gas valve if not done in 10 -15 minutes. SEGAS complied with the instruction [... ]187
We hereby want to record that the sudden suspension of the supply constitutes an unacceptable breach of your obligations to supply natural gas to the LNG plant in accordance with the terms and conditions of the gas supply agreement dated 1st August 2000. [...] We consider all this directly attributable to EGAS and we reserve our rights with respect to the subject matter under the Contract or elsewhere to protect our interests and recover any damages suffered.188
As for the committed volumes during the transient period of shortfalls, the positions are aligned with the exception of the first quarter of year 2011. We have made the effort to adjust the quantities as per Egas' indications and we appreciate Egas' position to commit to such minimum volumes as they are of extreme importance to guarantee a minimum throughput in Damietta LNG Plant and a minimum level supply to markets.189
Street protests in Egypt intensified on 25 January 2011. I remember hearing that there were calls for people to join the demonstrations in the press that week. The press was saying that big demonstrations would take place on 28 January 2011, after Friday noon prayers.194
At the same time, Egypt was also suffering from an unfolding energy crisis that manifested itself in country-wide electricity shortages and daily power cuts. In addition to the inconvenience and hardships this caused households, energy shortages also had a negative impact on industry, which in many cases, such as heavy industries like cement production, were operating at 50-60 per cent capacity. This energy crisis had a strong negative impact on the economy, with significant reductions in industrial production and employment.195
The Global Financial Crisis and the 2011 revolution caused instability and security concerns that made investors reluctant to invest.196
In consequence, investment fell for both exploration for new fields, and development of existing fields with existing infrastructure in order to maintain or increase capacity. The latter, in particular, caused a rapid decline in the levels of gas production.197