By the Arbitration Panel composed of:

1. Mr. Mohammad Al-Shahaat Al-Sayed Hasanain, attorney at the Courts of Cassation, of Egyptian nationality, with his office located at 257, Al-Hejaz Street, El-Nozha, Helioplis Cairo.

(Chairman of the Arbitration Panel)

2. Mr. Mohammad Arsheed Abdullah Aldeiri, Lawyer, of Jordanian nationality, with his office located at Villa No. 32, Abdullah Ghosha Street, Amman, Jordan.

(Arbitrator nominated by the Claimants)

3. Dr. Abul-Ela Ali Abul-Ela Al-Nimr, Professor and Head of Private International Law at the Faculty of Law. Ain Shams University, Attorney at the Courts of Cassation, an Arbitrator approved under a Resolution by the Minister of Justice, of Egyptian nationality, with his office located at the 8th Floor, 10, Al-Oboor Buildings, Salah Salem Road, Cairo.

(Arbitrator nominated by the Defendant)

The Arbitration Case Is Filed by:

First: Mr. Waleed Bin Khalid Abu Al-Waleed Al-Qarqani. in his personal capacity, and as Agent of the heirs of late/ Khalid Abu Al-Waleed Al-Qarqani. who are the heirs of late Khalid Abu Al-Waleed Al Hood Al-Qarqani, as evidenced by Bab Bin Ghesheer Court of First Instance, Commitments and Shari’ah Wills Department at the General People Committee for Justice in the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya dated 13.09.2010 G as per Order No. 360-2010, evidencing the death of late/ Khalid Abu Al-Waleed Al Hood Al-Qarqani on 15.09.1971 G.

His inheritance is limited to:

1. Mr. Al-Waleed Khalid Abu Al-Waleed Al Hood Al-Qarqani,

2. Mr. Ahmed Khalid Abu Al-Waleed Al Hood Al-Qarqani,

3. Mrs. Shaha Khalid Abu Al-Waleed Al Hood Al-Qarqani,

4. Mrs. Naoum Al-Doha Khalid Abu Al-Waleed Al Hood Al-Qarqani,

5. Heirs of late/ Badriah So'ad Khalid Abu Al-Waleed Al Hood Al-Qarqani, (His daughter), and her inheritance is limited to her above mentioned brothers.

6. Heirs of late/ Badi’ah Khalid Abu Al-Waleed Al Hood Al-Qarqani (His daughter), and her inheritance is limited to her above mentioned brothers.

7. Heirs of late/Nadeemah Khalid Abu Al-Waleed Al Hood Al-Qarqani (His daughter) and her inheritance is limited to her above mentioned brothers

8. Heirs of late/ Jameelah Abdullah Mohammad (his wife),

They are the same heirs of late/ Khalid Abu Al-Waleed Al Hood Al-Qarqani as above mentioned

9. Heirs of late/ Laila Naeema Khalid Abu Al-Waleed Al Hood Al-Qarqani,

Her death was evidenced on 25.06.1995G, and her inheritance is limited toher son Mustafa Jawad Zikri.

10. Mr./Mustafa Jawad Zikri

All the above named are of Saudi Nationality

11. Heirs of late/ Mariam Mai Khalid Abu Al-Waleed Al Hood Al-Qarqani

Her death was evidenced on 08.03.2007G, and her inheritance is limited to her sons, namely:

12. Heirs of late/ Omar Abdul-Rahman Azzam:

13. Mr./Khalid Omar Abdul-Rahman Azzam,

14. Mrs. Fatima Omar Abdul-Rahman Azzam,

15. Mr. Omar Abdul-Rahman Omar Abdul-Rahman Azzam,

16. Mrs. Najlaa Omar Abdul-Rahman Azzam,

17. Mrs. Laila Omar Abdul-Fattah Azzam (his wife)

A the above named are of Egyptian Nationality

18. Heirs of Her Royal Highness Late/ Mona Bint Abdul-Rahman Bin Hasan Azzam,

Statement of the Heirs No. 1, as per Deed No. 101/1, dated 11.05.1435H. Her death was evidenced on 19 04.1435H. Her heirs are as follows:

19. HRH Prince Mohammad, Bin King Faisal Bin Abdulaziz Al Saad,

20. HRH Prince Amr Bin Mohammed Bin King Faisal Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud,

21. HRH Princess Maha Bint Mohammad Bin King Faisal Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud,

22. HRH Princess Reem Bint Mohammad Bin King Faisal Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud

All the above named are of Saudi Nationality

23. Heirs of late/ Essam Abdul-Rahman Azzam (of Egyptian nationality) who has no children. His inheritance is limited to the above mentioned heirs.

Their elected domicile is the Law Office of Dr. Abdul- Haleem Mandoor, Attorney at the Courts of Cassation, located at 36, Rushdi Street, Abdeen District, Cairo, Arab Republic of Egypt.

Second: Heirs of late Sheikh/Adbullah Al-Solaiman Al-Hamdan, namely:

1. Mr. Ahmed Abdullah Bin Al-Solaiman Al-Hamdan, in his personal capacity, delegated Mr. Ahmed Abdul-Hayy Ghanem, the attorney, as per the Special Power of Attorney, issued at Rodh El-Faraj Notarization Office, dated 13.12.2014G, and in his capacity as the Agent of:

2. Heirs of late/ Khadijah Saleh Al-Fadhl (his wife)

Her inheritance is evidenced as per Deed of Inheritance, issued at Jeddah Court under No. 56/10, on 07.06.1427H, namely:

3. Mr. Abdulaziz Abdullah Al-Solaiman Al-Hamdan,

4. Heirs of late/ Dala’ Adil Abdul-Qader Qabbani

Her inheritance is evidenced as per Deed of Inheritance No. 776, issued at Jeddah Court on 29.07.1385H, and she was inherited by her brother as per the Deed of Inheritance No. 22/16, issued on 11.05.1431 H, Volume No. 1/16, issued at the General Court of Taif Governorate, and he is:

5. Mr. Mazen Bin Adil Bin Abdul-Qader Qabbani,

6. Heirs of late/ Fahad Abdullah Al-Solaiman Al-Harridan,

His inheritance is evidenced as per Shari'ah Deed No. 31/326/1, issued at Jeddah Court on 21.08.1420 H. The heirs are:

7. Shafia’ Saif Ahmed Abu Halail (his wife),

8. Mr. Abdullah Fahad Abdullah Al-Solaiman Al-Hamdan,

9. Mr. Zaid Fahad Abdullah Al-Solaiman Al-Hamdan,

10. Mrs. Sumayyah Fahad Abdullah Al-Solaiman Al-Hamdan,

11. Heirs of late/ Mohammad Abdullah Al-Solaiman Al-Hamdan

His inheritance is evidenced as per Shari'ah Deed No. 35/13, issued at Jeddah Court on 25.02.1424 H, Volume No. 4/13. The heirs are:

12; Mrs. Hayat Yahya Abdullah Noori (his wife),

13. Mr. Salah Mohammad Abdullah Al-Solaiman,

14; Mrs. Khadijah Mohammad Abdullah Al-Solaiman,

15; Mrs. Laila Mohammad Abdullah Al-Solaiman,

Whose inheritance is evidenced as per Shari 'ah Deed No. 776, issued on 21.07.1385 H, and as per the Deed of Will No. 154/1/5, dated 25/08/1408 H. The heirs are:

16. Mr. Faisal Majed Mohammad Al-Solaiman,

17. Mrs. Sarah Majed Mohammad Al-Solaiman,

18. Heirs of late/ Khalid Abdullah Al-Solaiman Al-Hamdan

Whose inheritance is evidenced as per Shari’ah Deed No. 51/12, issued at Jeddah Court, Volume No. 1/12, on 17/08/1427 H. The heirs are:

19. Mrs. Laila Ibrahim Abu Samrah (his wife),

20. Mr. Yazeed Khalid Abdullah Al-Solaiman Al-Hamdan

21. Mr. Waleed Khalid Abdullah Al-Solaiman Al-Hamdan,

22. Mr. Tariq Khalid Abdullah Al-Solaiman Al-Hamdan,

23. Heirs of late/ Loulwa Abdullah Al-Solaiman Al-Hamdan

Her inheritance was evidenced as per Deed No. 88/136/15, issued at Jeddah Court on 12.07.1411 H. The heir are:

24. Mrs. Ruqayyah Abdul-Rahman Al-Rasheed,

25. Heirs of late/ Mohammad Abdul-Rahman Al-Rasheed

His inheritance was evidenced as per Deed of Inheritance No. 237414071175310427, issued at Jeddah General Court on 25.10.1431 H. The heirs are:

26. Mrs. Asma’ Bint Abdullah Mohammad Al-Rasheed (his wife),

27. Mr. Bandar Bin Mohammad Bin Abdul-Rahman Al-Rasheed,

28. Mr. Sultan Mohammad Abdul-Rahman Al-Rasheed,

29. Mr. Majed Bin Mohammad Abdul-Rahman Al-Rasheed,

30. Mrs. Nada Bint Mohammad Abdul-Rahman Al-Rasheed,

31. Mrs. Basmah Bint Mohammad Abdul-Rahman Al-Rasheed,

32. Heirs of late/ Madhawi Bint Abdullah Al-Solaiman Al-Hamdan

Whose inheritance after her father, late/Abdullah Al-Solaiman Al-Hamdan, is evidenced as per Shari’ah Deed No. 776, issued on 29.07.1385 H, and her inheritance is evidenced as per Deed No. 3470745, issued on 09.08.1434 H. The heirs are:

33. Mrs. Munawwar Ateeq Mohammad Al-Solaiman Al-Hamdan,

34. Mrs. Fattoum Ateeq Mohammad Al-Solaiman Al-Hamdan,

35. Heirs of late/ Asma' Abdullah Al-Solaiman Al-Hamdan

Whose inheritance after her father. late/Abdullah Al-Solaiman Al-Hamdan, is evidenced as per Shari ah Deed No. 776, issued on 29'07 1385 H., and her inheritance is evidenced as per Deed No. 8/262/1, issued at Jeddah Court on 29.01.1416 H. The heirs are:

36. Mr. Hamad Bin Saad Bin Hamad Al-Solaiman,

37. Mrs. Basmah Hashim Saeed Hashim,

38. Mrs. Fatimah Abdullah Al-Solaiman Al-Hamdan,

Whose inheritance after her father, is evidenced as per Deed No. 776, issued on 29.07.1385H.

39. Mrs. Hind Bint Abdullah Al-Solaiman Al-Hamdan,

Whose inheritance after her father, is evidenced as per Deed No. 776, issued on 29.07.1385H. All of the are of Saudi Nationality

They are all residing in the Building of Sheikh/ Abdullah Al- Sulaimn Al-Hamdan, Al-Ikhlass Street, Al-Hamra District, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Their elected domicile is the Office of Dr. Abdul-Haleem Mandoor, Attorney at Courts of Cassation, located at 36, Rushdi Street, Abdeen, Cairo, Arab Republic Egypt.

(First Party - Claimants)

AGAINST

Second: Chevron Entities (Chevron Company of USA. Chevron Saudi Arabia and Aramco), having their main offices at 6001, Bolinga Road. Canyon San Romano, CA, 94583. 2324, United State of America, represented by Mr. Carry H. Andreas, in his capacity as Assistant Secretary and legally authorized, having their elected domicile at the Law Office of Al-Ebrashi and Co., located at the 4th Floor, 4, Al-Sadd Al-Aali Street, Dokki District, Cairo - 12311, Arab Republic of Egypt, and the Office of Zulfaqqar & Co. for Legal Consultancy and Advocacy, located at the 8th Floor, the Southern Tower, Nile City Towers, 2005 (A), Nile Cornice, Ramlat Bolaq, Cairo, Egypt.

(Second Party - Respondents)

On 20.09.1368H, the heirs of the Claimants, namely: Late Sheikh/Abdullah Al-Solaiman Al-Hamdan, Late Sheikh/Hammad Bin El Solaiman Al Hamdan and late Sheikh/ Khalid Abu Al-Waleed Al-Qarqani, owned as per the order issued by His Highness Prince/ Saud Bin Jalawi, No. 1687/5022 dated 20.09.1368H, an area of land with the boundaries and landmarks shown in the Title Deed No. 124, Volume 2 for the Year 1368H, and on the map enclosed to the reverend said Order, provided that late Sheikh/ Abdullah Solaiman Al-Hamdan and late Sheikh/ Hamad Al-Solaiman Al-Hamdan own three-quarters (3/4) of such area of land, and late/ Khalid Abu Al-Waleed Al-Qarqani owns the remaining quarter of such area.

Subject Title Deed No. 124, Volume 2 of 1368H, stipulates:

The land, the subject mailer of this sale luis become a pure ownership and right for each of Their Excellencies/ Abdullah and Hamad Bin Al-Solaiman Al-Hamdan and Khalid Abu Al-Waleed Al-Qarqani, provided that three- qu arters (3/4) of such land shall he owned by each of Their Excellencies Sheikh" Abdullah and Sheikh/ Hamad Al-Solaiman Al- Hamdan, and the fourth quarter shall he for Khalid Abu Al-Waleed. They shall have the right to act on their respective land as owners of the same without anyone objecting or disputing them in that regard....."

On 29th July 1933G, the Saudi Government, represented by His Excellency/Abdullah Al-Solaiman Al-Hamdan, in his capacity as Minister of Finance, concluded, with the Arab American Oil Company (Standard Oil of California), the first Petroleum Agreement (the "Concession Agreement"). As per Article 1 of such Agreement:

"The Government hereby grants the Company the absolute right, for a period of sixty (60) years, as of the effective date hereof, to investigate, explore, drill, extract, process, manufacture, transport, handle, take and export oil, asphalt, natural greases, wax and other carbonic fluids and extracts of all such products, in connection with the area specified in the Annex of this Agreement".

Such Agreement was called "Concession Agreement for Oil Extraction".

On the First of Jumada Al-Thani 1368H that corresponds to 20.03.1949G, the representative of the Arab American Oil Company (Standard Oil of California), the predecessors of the Respondents, sent a letter to the owners of the land - subject of Title Deed No. 124, Volume 2 of 1368H - setting the areas the Company needed from the land that belong to them, in order to carry out its obligations as set forth in the Concession Agreement concluded with the Saudi Government on 29th July 1933G.

The above mentioned Title Deed No, 124, Volume 2 of 1368H, included under the title "Transfer to the Arab American Oil Company", what states:

"Against the good compensation that would be paid to us, we, the undersigned, as per our ownership right under Deed No. 154/8, of the plots of land stated thereof, we hereby grant and transfer, each for himself and for his heirs, guardians and lawful representatives, to the Arab American Oil Company, referred to in subjed Deed, or its successors and whoever it appoints, the right to use and occupy said plots of land for the purposes of the Saudi Arabian Concession, dated 4th Safar 1352H that corresponds to, 29th July 1933G, and any additional agreements to be annexed thereto. We, hereby, declare and prove that the rights of the said Company to use and occupy subject land arise in accordance with Article 25 of the said Concession, and we hereby also agree to safeguard the said Company, its successors and whoever it appoints against all claims, whether in the past, present or in future, against anyone claiming title or interest in any of the said plots of land".

(This was signed by each of Khalid Abu Al-Waleed, Hamad Al-Solaiman and Abdullah Al-Solaiman).

On 08.07.1375H, pursuant to the aforementioned Deed of Sale No. 128, His Excellency Sheikh Hamad Al-Solaiman Al-Hamdan assigned his share in the land subject to the above mentioned Deed to his brother. Sheikh/ Abdullah Al- Solaiman as per the Deed issued from Makkah Al-Mukarramah Notary Public No. 765 on 08.07.1375H.

Consequently, the owners of the land, the subject matter of Deed of Sale No. 124, have become Sheikh/ Abdullah Al-Solaiman at three- quarters (3/4) and Khalid Abu Al-Waleed at one-quarter (1/4).

Article 25 of the Concession Agreement concluded on 26th July 1933G stipulates:

"The Saudi Government authorizes the Arab American Oil Company (Standard Oil of California) to obtain from the owner of the land, the surface rights of the land that the Company believe in the need of using them in the project related works provided that the Company shall pay to the occupant of the land an amount for assigning the use of such lands. As for the amount to be paid to such occupant, it shall be fair and based on the benefit the occupant obtains from such land. The Government shall extend to the Company all possible assistance in case of any difficulties arising from obtaining the rights of the occupant of the land surface...."

There are many letters and correspondence submitted and kept in the file of this Case, issued by the claimants to all concerned authorities in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia claiming to obtain their rights represented in the price of the land, subject matter of arbitration, its rental value and compensating them for not benefitting by the land for so many years.

However, the Claimants received no response from any concerned authority in that regard, a matter that made them resort to this arbitration in execution of Article 31 of the Concession Agreement, concluded on 29th July 1933G.

On 24.05.2014G, Mr. Ahmed Abdullah Al-Solaiman. in his personal capacity, and as the Agent of Mr. Waleed Bin Khalid Abu Al-Waleed Al-Qarqani and others, applied to the International Arbitration Center requesting approval for conducting arbitration procedures and resolving the dispute arising between them and Chevron Saudi Arabia Company as well as their entities (Respondents), through the International Arbitration Center, in execution of Article 31 of the Concession Agreement, dated 31st July 1933G.

On 27.05.2014G, the International Arbitration Center sent a letter to Mr. Waleed Bin Khalid Al-Waleed Al-Qarqani and others (Claimants) informing them of its approval to conduct arbitration in the above mentioned dispute, and taking its necessary measures in accordance with its regulations. In this letter, the International Arbitration Center requested the Parties of Arbitration to select their Arbitrators.

On 28.05.2014G, the Claimants sent a letter to the International Arbitration Center requesting that the Center appoint, on their behalf, an Arbitrator from amongst the list of arbitrators accredited to the Center.

On 02.06.2014G, the International Arbitration Center sent a letter to the Claimants informing them of selecting Dr. Ahmed Sadiq Al-Qushairi as their Arbitrator, being one of the accredited arbitrators in the Center’s List. The Center also informed them that Mr. Al-Qushairi has already been notified of such selection and that he has accepted over the phone such nomination.

On 05.06.2014G, the International Arbitration Center sent a letter to Chevron Saudi Arabia Company and its entities requesting them to appoint their Arbitrator in respect of the dispute arising between them and the Claimants within a period of no more than thirty (30) days as of the date of receiving such letter, and that in case such period lapses without appointing their Arbitrator, then the Center shall nominate him in accordance with the Center’s Regulations, and thereupon the arbitration procedures shall commence.

On 05.07.2014G, Ibrachy and Partner Legal Consultancy Firm, as the selected domicile for Chevron Saudi Arabia Company and its entities, sent a letter (to the International Arbitration Center) including his rejection for nominating it to consider the above mention arbitration in accordance with its regulations.

In the same letter. Chevron Company and its entities, as a precautionary measure, nominate Dr. Mohammad Abdul-Wahab, of Egyptian Nationality, as an arbitrator on their behalf, and that his address is 8th Floor, the Southern Tower, Nile City Towers, and Dr. Abdul Wahab.

On 19.08.2014G, the International Arbitration Center sent a notice to Dr. Mohammad Salah. Abdul-Wahab informing him that as per the letter sent from Chevron Company to the International Arbitration Center dated 05.07.2014G, Chevron Company and its entities appointed him as Arbitrator on their behalf. Dr. Mohamed Salah Abdul-Wahab was informed in the same letter that the Claimants have selected Dr. Ahmed Sadiq Al-Qushairi as an arbitrator on their behalf.

On 21.08.2014 G., Dr. Mohammad Salah Abdul-Wahab sent a letter to the International Arbitration Center informing it of his approval of being appointed as an arbitrator by Chevron Company and its entities.

On 26.08.2014 G., the International Arbitration Center sent a letter to Dr. Mohammad Salah Abdul-Wahab, the Arbitrator appointed for Respondents that included the nomination of a number of arbitrators registered in the Center’s List in order for him to select one of them to be the Umpire. Such letter also stated that such names were brought before Mr. Ahmed Sadiq Al-Qushairi to select one of them to be the Umpire.

On 31.08.2014 G., the International Arbitration Center sent a letter to Dr. Mohammad Salah Abdul-Wahab informing him that Dr. Ahmed Sadiq Al- Qushairi nominated Dr. Mohammad Ahmed Ali Ghali, of Sudanese Nationality. Assistant to the Minister of Justice in the Sudan, to be the Umpire.

On 31.08.2014G, Dr. Mohammad Salah Abdul-Wahab sent a letter to the International Arbitration Center informing it that he was in the process of coordinating with Dr. Ahmed Sadiq Al-Qushairi with regards the appointment of the Umpire.

On 01.09.2014G, the International Arbitration Center sent a letter to Dr. Mohammad Salah Abdul-Wahab repeating that Dr. Ahmed Sadiq Al-Qushairi has selected Dr. Mohammad Ahmed Ali Al-Ghali to be the Umpire, and in this letter also the Center asked Dr. Mohammad Salah Abdul-Wahab to approve the selection of subject Umpire.

On 02.09.2014G, both Dr. Ahmed Sadiq Al-Qushairi and Dr. Mohammad Salah Abdul-Wahab sent a joint letter to the Center deciding their withdrawal from the above mentioned Arbitration Case.

On 04.09.2014G, Mr. Waleed Bin Khalid Abu Al-Waleed Al-Qarqani, in his personal capacity and as the Agent of the other Claimants, sent a letter to Mr. Mohammad Arsheed Abdullah Aldeiri, the attorney, of Jordanian Nationality, appointing him as Arbitrator for on their behalf instead of Dr. Ahmed Sadiq Al- Qushairi who decided to withdraw from the arbitration and notified the Claimants of such withdrawal. Such letter emphasized as well that Dr. Mohammad Salah Abdul-Wahab was still the Arbitrator of the Respondents as they did not send any letter confirming his withdrawal from the arbitration.

On 07.09.2014G, Mr. Mohammad Arsheed Aldeiri sent a letter to the Claimants informing them that he approved his appointment as Arbitrator on their behalf in subject Arbitration Case.

On 07.09.2014G, the Claimants sent a letter to the Saudi Arabian Oil Company Chevron Company and its entities and Chevron Saudi Arabia informing them of the nomination of Mr. Mohammad Arsheed Aldeiri as their Arbitrator instead of Dr. Ahmed Sadiq Al-Qushairi who apologized for discontinuing in the Arbitration Case.

On 07.09.2014G, the International Arbitration Center sent a letter to Dr. Mohammad Salah Abdul-Wahab informing him that the Claimants selected Mr. Mohammad Arsheed Aldeiri as their Arbitrator instead of Dr. Ahmed Sadiq Al-Qushairi who apologized for discontinuing as Arbitrator in this Arbitration Case.

On 15.09.2014G, Mr. Mohammad Arsheed Aldeiri sent a letter to the International Arbitration Center informing it that he agreed, over the phone, with Dr. Mohammad Salah Abdul-Wahab, the Arbitrator for the Claimants to meet him in Cairo on 14.09.2014G, in order to select the Umpire. However, only on 13.09.2014G, Dr. Abdul-Wahab apologized for meeting him. Consequently, Mr. Mohammad Arsheed Aldeiri demanded the International Arbitration Center to apply its regulations and select an Umpire from amongst the arbitrators registered in the Center’s list as he could not agree with Dr. Mohammad Salah Abdul-Wahab on selecting the Umpire.

On 16.09.2014G, the International Arbitration Center sent a letter to Dr. Hamdy Abdul-Rahman Ahmed informing him that the Center nominated him as Umpire in the said Arbitration Case, as being one of the arbitrators registered in the Center’s list as the other two Arbitrators failed to agree on selecting the Umpire.

On 17.09.2014G, Dr. Hamdy Abdul-Rahman Ahmed sent a letter to the International Arbitration Center advising his consent to be appointed as Umpire in the said Arbitration Case, and he declared that he is neutral and independent from the two Parties of this Case.

On 18.09.2014G, the International Arbitration Center sent a letter to Mr. Mohammad Arsheed Aldeiri, the Arbitrator nominated by the Claimants informing him to attend the meeting of the Arbitration Panel, composed of Dr. Hamdy Abdul-Rahman Ahmed as Umpire, Dr. Mohammad Salah Abdul-Wahab, the Arbitrator nominated the Respondents and himself, which meeting was to be held in the premises of the Center on 20.09.2014G in order to set a time for the proceedings Hearing.

On 18.09.2014G, Dr. Hamdy Abdul-Rahman Ahmed, the Umpire, sent a letter to Dr. Mohammad Salah Abdul-Wahab and Mr. Mohammad Arsheed Aldeiri inviting them to a meeting in the premises of the Arbitration Center, in their capacity as Arbitrators, on 20.09.2014G, in order to set the time for the proceedings Hearing.

On the same date, the international Arbitration Center sent a letter to Dr. Mohammad Salah Abdul-Wahab and Mr. Mohammad Arsheed Aldeiri with the same content of above mentioned letter that was sent to them by Dr. Hamdy Abdul- Rahman Ahmed, the Umpire.

On 20.09.2014, the Arbitration Panel held a meeting in the premises of the International Arbitration Center, at 12:00 p.m. The meeting was attended by Dr. Hamdy Abdul Rahman Ahmed, the Umpire, and Mr. Mohammad Arsheed Aldeiri, the Arbitrator appointed the Claimants, however, Dr. Mohammad Salah Abdul-Wahab, the Arbitrator appointed by the Respondent failed to attend that Hearing although he was duly and legally notified. The Arbitration Panel set a Hearing to be held on 23.09.2014G in order to consider the Arbitration Case, and notified Dr. Mohammad Salah Abdul-Wahab of the Minutes of the Hearing held on 20/09/2014 G. and of the time set for the Hearing to be held on 23.09.2014G.

On 23.09.2014G, the Arbitration Panel held a Hearing which was attended by Dr. Hamdy Abdul-Rahman Ahmed, the Umpire, and Mr. Mohammad Arsheed Aldeiri, the Arbitrator appointed by the Claimant, however. Dr. Mohammad Salah Abdul-Wahab, the Arbitrator appointed Respondents tailed to attend the Hearing although he was duly and legally notified. The Hearing for considering the Case was adjourned to 18.10.2014G. The two Parties and Dr. Mohammad Salah Abdul-Wahab were notified of the date of the upcoming Hearing.

On 24.09.2014G, the International Arbitration Center notified the Respondents of the Hearing to be held on 18.10.2014G.

On 30.09.2014G, the International Arbitration Center notified Dr. Mohammad Salah Abdul-Wahab, the Arbitrator appointed by the Respondents of the Hearing to be held on 18.10.2014G.

On 18.10.2014G, the Arbitration Panel held a Hearing which was attended by Dr. Hamdy Abdul-Rahman Ahmed, the Umpire, and Mr. Mohammad Arsheed Aldeiri, the Arbitrator appointed the Claimant, and again Dr. Mohammad Salah Abdul-Wahab, the Arbitrator appointed by the Respondents, failed to attend although he was duly and legally notified. The Hearing was also attended by the Agents of the Claimants who were delegated as per Powers of Attorney which were recorded and proved to entitle them the right to attend before Arbitration Panels. The Panel reviewed the originals then returned them to the Agents after keeping a copy of them in the Case File. The Arbitration Panel stated in the minutes of that Hearing that Dr. Mohammad Salah Abdul-Wahab confirmed his apology for not participating in the exiting Arbitration Case. Thereupon, the Arbitration Panel decided to appoint the Legal Consultant, Mr. Abdul-Nasir Mohammad Abdul-Hameed Khattab, the Deputy Chairman of the Administrative Prosecution Board, as Arbitrator for the Respondent instead of Dr. Mohammad Salah Abdul-Wahab, and notified him of the following Hearing that would be held on 15.11.2014G.

On 28.10.2014G, the International Arbitration Center sent a letter to the Legal Consultant, the Chairman of the Administrative Prosecution Board, notifying him that the Center selected the Legal Consultant, Abdul-Nasir Mohammad Abdul- Hameed Khattab, the Deputy Chairman of the Administrative Prosecution Board, to be an Arbitrator for the Respondents, and requested the approval of the Legal Consultant, Chairman of the Administrative Prosecution Board, for the appointment of the Legal Consultant, Abdul-Nasir Mohammad Abdul-Hameed Khattab, as Arbitrator for the Respondents.

On 30.10.2014G, the International Arbitration Center sent a letter to the entities of Chevron, the Respondents, notifying them that the Center selected the Legal Consultant, Abdul-Nasir Mohammad Abdul-Hameed Khattab, to be their Arbitrator instead of Dr. Mohammad Salah Abdul-Wahab.

On 30.10.2014G, the International Arbitration Center notified the Claimants and the Respondents of the Hearing to be held on 15.11.2014G.

On 01.11.2014G, the Legal Consultant, the Minister of Justice, passed his Resolution No. 8866 for the Year 2014G, delegating, under Article 4 thereof, the Legal Consultant, Abdul-Nasir Mohammad Abdul-Hameed Khattab, Deputy Chairman of the Administrative Prosecution Board, to act as Arbitrator for the entities of Chevron, as Respondents, in the Arbitration Case filed by Mr. Khalid Abu Al-Waleed Al-Qarqani and others, in their capacity as Claimants.

On 15.11.2014G, the Arbitration Panel held a Hearing in the premises of the International Arbitration Center. The Hearing was attended by Dr. Hamdy Abdul-Rahman, as Umpire. Mr. Mohammad Arsheed Aldeiri, as Arbitrator appointed by the Claimants, and the Legal Consultant Abdul- Nasir Mohammad Abdul-Hameed Khattab, as Arbitrator appointed for the Respondents. The Hearing was also attended by the agents of the Claimants as per Powers of Attorney, which were requested by the Panel and recorded in the Minutes of the Hearing. No one attended for the Respondents although they were soundly notified of the time for the Hearing. The Arbitration Panel decided to adjourn the Hearing to 06.12.2014G for submission of copies of relevant documents, the originals of which were reviewed by the Panel, and for providing a detailed statement of the Powers of Attorney and to match the them with the Minutes of the Hearing.

On 16.11.2014G, the Claimants and the Respondents were notified of the Hearing to be held at 1:00 pm on 06.12.2014G.

On 06.12.2014G, the Arbitration Panel held a Hearing in the premises of the International Arbitration Center. The Hearing was attended by Dr. Hamdy Abdul-Rahman, the Umpire, Mr. Mohammad Arsheed Aldeiri, the Arbitrator appointed by the Claimants and the Legal Consultant, Abdul- Nasir Mohammad Abdul-Hameed Khattab, the Arbitrator appointed for Respondents. The Hearing was also attended by the agents of the Claimants as per Powers of Attorneys that were reviewed by the Panel and the Panel made sure of the capacity of the attendants and the capacity of the heirs. No one attended for the Respondents although they were duly and legally notified of the time set for the Hearing. At this Hearing, the Arbitration Panel decided to adjourn the Hearing to 21.02.2015G for submission of relevant documents and memoranda and for the verbal argument. The Panel decided to notify the Respondents of such Hearing. The Panel indicated that there were two warnings addressed to the International Arbitration Center and to the members of Arbitration Panel from the Respondents and the attendants were notified of their content.

On 07.12.2014G, the International Arbitration Center notified the Respondents of the minutes of the Hearing of 06.12.2014G and of the time set for the following Hearing which would to be held on 21.02.2015G.

On 21.02.2015G, the Arbitration Panel held a Hearing in the premises of the International Arbitration Center. The Hearing was attended by the Claimants and Arbitration Panel while the Respondents failed to attend although they were duly notified of the time set for such Hearing. The Arbitration Panel decided to adjourn the Hearing to 28.03.2015G for argument, comments and briefs for whoever wishes, and decided to notify the Respondents of the adjournment decision and of the documents and briefs submitted in the Hearing of that day.

On 22.02.2015G, the International Arbitration Center notified the Respondents of the transcript of the Hearing of 21.02.2015G and of the time of the Hearing to be held on 28.03.2015G.

On 08.03.2015G, the International Arbitration Center notified the Respondents of reports prepared by experts in respect of a similar dispute over a plot of land, adjacent to the plot of land, subject matter of this dispute, owned by the Claimants, regarding the estimation of the rental value and the price due for the square meter in the land, subject matter of this dispute, and asked them to answer such reports, taking into account that such reports were prepared by valuer experts upon the request of the Claimants.

On 28.03.2015G, the Arbitration Panel held a Hearing. The Hearing was attended by Dr. Hamdy Abdul-Rahman, the Umpire, and the Legal Consultant. Abdul-Nasir Mohammad Abdul-Hameed Khattab, the Arbitrator appointed for the Respondents while Mr. Mohammad Arsheed Aldeiri, the Arbitrator appointed by the Claimants, failed to attend due to some critical health conditions following which he was admitted to a hospital. The Agents of the Claimants attended the Hearing while the Respondents failed to attend although they were duly notified of the time set for the Hearing. The Arbitration Panel decided, in this Hearing, to adjourn to a Hearing on 06.04.2015G due to the illness of Mr. Mohammad Arsheed Aldeiri, the Arbitrator appointed by the Claimants.

On 29.03.2015G, the International Arbitration Center notified the Respondents of the transcript of the Hearing of 28.03.2015G and the adjournment of the Hearing to 06.04.2015G.

On 06.04.2015G, the Arbitration Panel held a Hearing. The hearing was attended by its three (3) members and the Claimants while the Respondents failed to attend although they were duly notified of the transcript of the Hearing held on 28.03.2015G and of the adjournment decision to the Hearing of today, 06.04.2015G. At that Hearing, the Arbitration Panel decided to apply the Saudi Arbitration Law (as there was no agreement between the Parties of the dispute as to the applicable law to be adopted on the subject matter of the dispute, on basis that the Saudi Law is the most relevant law to the dispute) and would be complementary to the Rules of the International Arbitration Center applicable to the proceedings of the dispute, and the Panel decided to retain the Case for an award at the Hearing of 11.05.2015G.

On 06.05.2015G, the Legal Consultant, Abdul-Nasir Abdul-Hameed Khattab, the Arbitrator appointed for the Respondents, sent a letter to the International Arbitration Center apologizing for being unable to continue in the Arbitration Case as he was engaged in finalizing the formalities of the family of late Legal Consultant, Enani Abdulaziz, Chairman of the Administrative Prosecution Board, in addition to the burdens of his position that make it impossible for him to perform his duties as Arbitrator in the existing Arbitration.

On 07.05.2015G, the Legal Consultant Abdul-Nasir Mohammad Abdul-Hameeb Khattab served a warning notice, through a summon server, to the International Arbitration Center, that was delivered on 12.05.2015G, notifying the Center of his withdrawal from carrying out his duties as Arbitrator for Chevron Company and its entities, and declaring that he did not conduct any deliberations nor make any agreement on the form of the award to be given in such dispute, particularly since Mr. Mohammad Arsheed Aldeiri lives outside Egypt because he is Jordanian Nationality.

On 11.05.2015G, the Arbitration Panel held a Hearing for giving the award, in the presence of Dr. Hamdy Abdul-Rahman Ahmed, the Umpire, and Mr. Mohammad Arsheed Aldeiri, the Arbitrator appointed by the Claimants while the Legal Consultant. Abdul-Nasir Mohammad Abdul-Hameed Khattab. the Arbitrator appointed for the Respondents did not attend the Hearing. The Panel reviewed the letter of apology by Mr. Abdul-Nasir Mohammad Abdul-Hameed Khattab apologizing for being unable to continue as Arbitrator in the existing Arbitration, which letter was received by the International Arbitration Center on 06.05.2015G. The Hearing remained held until 1:30 p.m. waiting for the Legal Consultant, Abdul-Nasir Mohammad Abdul-Hameed Khattab, who did not appear although he was informed of the time of such Hearing. Thereupon, the Arbitration Panel decided to postpone the award to the Hearing of 18.05.2015G. at 1:00 p.m.

On 18.05.2015G, the International Arbitration Center notified Dr. Hamdy Abdul-Rahman Ahmed and Mr. Mohammad Arsheed Aldeiri of the notice received from the Third Arbitrator, the Legal Consultant, Abdul-Nasir Khattab, confirming his withdrawal from the existing arbitration and confirming that he did not deliberate on this arbitration and did not make any agreement as to the form of the award to be given, and the Center stated that it appointed, instead of him, a new arbitrator, namely: Dr. Abu Al-Ela Ali Abu Al-Ela Al-Nimr, for the Respondents. He is a Law Professor and Head of the Private International Law Section at the Faculty of Law, Ain Shams University, and an Attorney at the Courts of Cassation. Dr. Al-Nimr received the notice of his appointment as a replacement Arbitrator on 14.05.2015G. On 18.05.2015G, he notified the International Arbitration Center of his acceptance of the assignment and declared that he is neutral and independent.

On 18.05.2015G, Dr. Hamdy Abdul-Rahman Ahmed, the Umpire, Mr. Mohammad Arsheed Aldeiri, the Arbitrator representing the Claimants and Dr. Abu Al-Ela Ali Abu Al-Ela Al-Nimr, the Arbitrator for the Respondents, convened in the premises of the Arbitration Center. A meeting was held in the Hall of Deliberations at the premises of the International Arbitration Center. On that date, a Hearing transcript was drafted in which the attendance of Dr Hamdy Abdul-Rahman, the Umpire, and Mohammad Arsheed Aldeiri, the Arbitrator appointed by the Claimants was recorded. The transcript of that Hearing was signed by each of them, in addition to Dr Abu Al- Ela Ali Abu Al-Ela Al-Nimr, the Arbitrator appointed for the Respondents as he attended the Hearing with the approval of the Umpire, Dr. Hamdy Abdul-Rahman after submitting the letter of his appointment as Arbitrator for the Respondents and a declaration of his neutrality and independence. The Umpire agreed to have Dr. Abu Al-Ela Ai-Nimr as Member of the Arbitration Panel, received from him the above mentioned documents. Such documents were recorded in the transcript of the Hearing. The hearing lasted for one (1) hour and ten minutes.

The Panel discussed the issue of joining Dr. Abu Al-Ela Ali Abu Al-Nimr in the Arbitration Panel in replacement of the Legal Consultant, Abdul-Nasir Mohammad Abdul-Hameed Khattab, who withdrew from considering the existing Arbitration. Mr. Mohammad Arsheed Aldeiri, the Arbitrator appointed by the Claimants, accepted the appointment of such replacement Arbitrator whereas Dr. Hamdy Abdul-Rahman Ahmed, the Umpire (after a period of deliberations for more than one (1) hour and ten minutes) objected to this appointment. The Arbitrator appointed by the Claimants asked the Umpire not to issue the award because a new member had joined the Panel, and such member should hear the argument, and asked him to open the door for argument in a subsequent Hearing in order for the new member to hear the argument in the Case in accordance with the established litigation procedures whether before arbitration panels or judicial bodies, as it is legally established that the person who has heard the argument would issue the award. However, the Umpire refused such request and insisted that he would issue the award. In that regard, he relied, as established in the transcript of the Hearing of 18.05.2015G, on the notice submitted by the International Arbitration Center as being sent by the Legal Consultant, Abdul- Nasir Mohammad Abdul-Hameed Khattab, which notice was unclear and that he had the right to solely issue the award in accordance with the Arbitration Agreement provided for under Article 31 of the Agreement concluded in 1933G. He also held on the fact that he had already prepared the award and the reasoning thereof in four (4) pages only, to which the Arbitrator appointed by the Claimants reviewed. At the end of the meeting, the Umpire declared that he had fulfilled his assignment and left the premises of the International Arbitration Center without legally delivering the Award to the management of the International Arbitration Center, as he did not draft a legal filing transcript for the delivery of the award.

On 18.05.2015G, a transcript had been drafted for the Hearing attended by Mr. Mohammad Arsheed Aldeiri, the Arbitrator appointed by the Claimants, and Dr. Abu AI-Ela Ali Abu AI-Ela Al-Nimr, the Arbitrator appointed for the Respondents in order to consider taking the necessary legal procedures so as to proceed with considering the existing Arbitration in the light of the withdrawal of the Legal Consultant. Abdul-Nasir Mohammad Abdul-Hameed Khattab from considering this Arbitration and based on the refusal by Dr. Hamdy Abdul-Rahman Ahmed, the Umpire, to re-open the door for the argument due to the appointment of a new arbitrator, and also to consider selecting an Umpire instead of Dr. Hamdy Abdul Rahman Ahmed. The two arbitrators attending at this meeting decided to select Mr. Mohammad Al-Shahaat Al-Sayed Hasanain, Attorney at the Courts of Cassation, as Umpire, and instructing the International Arbitration Center to notify him of such selection, and to set the time for a Hearing to be held on 19.05.2015G, at 2:00 p.m. as a Procedural Hearing in order to complete the formation of the Arbitration Panel.

On 18.05.2015G, Mr. Mohammad Al-Shahaat Al-Sayed Hasanain, Attorney at the Courts of Cassation, was notified of the decision of appointing him as Umpire in the existing Arbitration.

On 19.05.2015G, Mr. Mohammad Al-Shahaat Al-Sayed Hasanain accepted the selection decision as Umpire, and declared that he is neutral and independent from the two sides of the dispute.

On 19.05.2015G, the Arbitration Panel held a Procedural Hearing attended by Mr. Mohammad Al-Shahaat Al-Sayed Hasanain, the Umpire, Mr. Mohammad Arsheed Aldeiri the Arbitrator appointed by the Claimants, and Dr. Abu Al-Ela Ali Abu Al-Ela Al-Nim, the Arbitrator appointed for the Respondents. At such Hearing, the Arbitration Panel credited re-opening the door for argument at a Hearing to be held on 27.05.2015G, and instructing the International Arbitration Center to notify the two (2) Parties of the Arbitration in order to attend such Hearing and express their respective written and oral defenses.

On 19.05.2015G, the International Arbitration Center notified the Respondents of the decision to open the door for argument at a Hearing to be held on 27.05.2015G, and of the new formation of the Arbitration Panel.

The Arbitration Agreement was set forth in Article 31 of the First Petroleum Agreement dated 29th July 1938G. This Article stipulated:

"In case any doubt, controversy or difference arise between the Government and the Company, as to the execution of this Agreement or the interpretation or implementation of any provision thereof, or in relation thereto, or in connection with the rights or responsibilities of either Party, and the two Parties fail to agree on a settlement by another means, the Case shall be referred to two (2) arbitrators, one to be selected by each Party, and one Umpire shall be selected jointly by the two arbitrators, before proceeding with the arbitration. Each Party shall appoint its Arbitrator within a period of thirty (30) days as of the date of being so requested in writing by the other Party. If the two (2) arbitrators fail to agree on appointing the Umpire, then the Government and the Company shall jointly appoint such umpire. If the Government and the Company fail to agree on the umpire, then they shall ask the President of the Permanent International Court of Justice to appoint the umpire. The award to be given by the two (2) Arbitrators in the Case shall be conclusive However, in case they fail to agree on an award, then the award to be given by the Umpire in the Case shall be final. As for the venue of arbitration, the two (2) Parties shall agree on such place. If they fail to so agree, then Arbitration shall be conducted in La Hague (Netherlands) ".

The Arbitration Panel presents a statement of the briefs and Documents Submitted by the Claimants

The Claimants submitted a Statement of their Arbitration citation and a a closing brief of their defense. In such documents, they stated the facts of the existing dispute and the phases it had passed through since the time of concluding the Concession Agreement between the Government of Saudi Arabia and Standard Oil of California Company and the possession of the heirs of the owners of the land subject matter of the dispute by virtue of a grant from His Majesty the King which title is evidenced by Deed No. 124, Volume 2 of 1368H. They referred as well to the Lease Contract included in subject Deed between the Principals of the Claimants and the Respondents. The area of the leased land amounted to (39,885,000) square meter (Thirty Nine Million Eight Hundred Eighty-Five Thousand Square Meters. The Principals of the Claimants stated that the Lease Contract expired in 2005G by the end of the above mentioned Concession Agreement, and that the Respondents have been refraining from handing over the land, the subject matter of this Arbitration, to the heirs of the owners of the land up till now. The Claimants initiated this Case - as stated in the in their Statement of the case and the closing argument brief - based on a number of legal and judicial grounds, represented in: 1- The Arbitration Panel is competent body to review the dispute under the Ownership Contract of Al-Solaiman & Co. The Lease Contract concluded between the Principals of the Claimants and the Respondents referred to the Concession Agreement concluded between the Saudi Government and the Arab American Oil Company on 29th July 1933G that provided in Article (31) thereof for an Arbitration Clause. Accordingly, such reference is to be deemed an arbitration agreement and the defense of the Claimants relied on the provisions of the Saudi Arbitration Law No. 34, dated 24.05.1433H, and in particular Article (9) thereof, as well as the Egyptian Arbitration Law No. 27 of 1994G, in particular Article (10) thereof. They also relied, in this regard, on court judgments issued in Egypt and some other Arab countries as to arbitration by referral. Moreover, they relied on opinions of Arab and Western Jurisprudence in that regard. 2-Extending the Arbitration Clause from the Concession Agreement to the Lease Contract because they form one contractual set and the existence of an Arbitration Clause in one of them should extend to the other one. The Claimants relied in that regard on court judgments issued by the French judiciary and published in the Arbitration Magazine published in the French language, in particular what was published in such Magazine in 1984G, page 363, and in I989G, page 691. 3- The Respondents have no right to refrain from attending the Arbitration Hearings on the justification that there is no Arbitration, and the Claimants based their defense, in this regard, on the rule which says "Competence by Competence", which grants the Arbitration Panel the competence or the defenses relating to whether or not there is an agreement on arbitration. They based their defense, in that respect, on the provision of Article (22) of the Egyptian Arbitration Law No. 27 of 1994G and the provision of Article 20 of the Saudi Arbitration Law No. 34, dated 24.05.1433H. In that regard, they held on the Egyptian jurisprudence opinions and some other judgments issued by the Egyptian Court of Cassation. In their Statement of Claim and the Closing Defense Brief, the Claimants explained the characterization of the Contract concluded between the Claimants and the Respondents. They stated that the Contract is the support of the claim out of the set of contracts and that the Deed (the Registered Contract) certified at the Public Notary Office (the notarization body of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) No. 124, included two Contracts, namely: the Title Contract of the Principals of the Claimants for the plot of land which area amounts to Four Thousand Four Hundred Ninety-Five and One-Half Hectare (Hec. 4,495), and the Lease Contract concluded between the Principals of the Claimants and the Respondents, in connection with the area of said land, as stipulated in the Deed No. 124. Volume 2 for the Year I368H. The defense of the Claimants mentioned the provisions relating to such two Contracts in the said Deed, and referred to several pieces of evidence proving the existence of a lease relationship between the Principals of the Claimants and the Respondents. The Arbitration Panel shall provide the documents that contain such pieces of evidence when presenting the documents submitted by the Claimants. The defense of the Claimants insisted on the expiry of the Lease Contract concluded between their Principals and the Respondents due to the expiry of the Concession Agreement in ar 2005G after the lapse of the sixty (60)-year period agreed upon under the Concession Agreement made on 29th July 1933G. They also presented the provisions included in the Deed (the Registered Contract) No. 124, Volume 2, of 1368H, in respect of the provisions of the above mentioned Lease Contract.

The defense of the Claimants claimed their right in compensation for the damages they incurred due to the non-handing over of the land, subject matter of this dispute, to them after the expiry of the term of the Lease Contract. In that respect, they relied to opinions of Egyptian jurisprudence scholars, provisions of the Egyptian Civil Code and some judgments issued in that regard by the Board of Grievances in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

The Claimants filed several documents supporting their Claim, which documents shall be addressed by the Arbitration Panel as a whole as their originals of such documents are kept in the Case File. These documents are as follows:

■ The First Petroleum Agreement signed between the Saudi Government and Standard Oil of California Company dated 29th Julyl933G.

■ The Title Contract of the plot of land - subject matter of the dispute - that proves the ownership of the Principals of the Claimants. It is the Deed (Registered Contract) No. 124, Volume 2 of 1368H.

■ A letter dated 04.05.1388H issued by the Arab American Oil Company in which it explicitly declare that the land, subject of the Deed No. 124, Volume 2 of 1368H, had been leased from their owners Khalid Abu Al-Waleed and late Hamad and Abdullah Al-Solaiman, throughout the term of the Concession Agreement.

■ A letter dated 26.05.1388H issued by the Arab American Oil Company that includes an acknowledgement of leasing the land, subject of the Deed, (Contract) No. 124, the subject matter of the dispute.

■ A letter dated 05.02.1389H issued by the Arab American Oil Company to the heirs of Al-Solaiman, that includes an acknowledgement of leasing the land, subject matter of the Deed No. 124., that is the subject matter of the dispute.

■ A letter dated 05.03.1389H issued by the Arab American Oil Company, that includes an acknowledgement of leasing the land, subject matter of the Deed No. 124., that is the subject matter of the dispute.

■ A letter dated 03.11.139. H issued by the Arab American Oil Company and addressed to the heirs of Al-Solaiman, the Claimants, declaring that it is leasing the land, the subject matter of dispute, which is owned by those heirs.

■ A letter dated 23rd Ramadan 1407 H sent by the Company, the Respondents, to the Heirs of the Claimants, declaring that it is leasing the land owned by the Heirs, subject of the Deed No 124, Volume 2 of 1368H, the land subject matter of the dispute.

■ The transcript of the Trespasses Removal Committee that reports to the Eastern Province Administration in the Ministry of Interior, dated 15.05.1414H in which such Committee stated that the land, the subject matter of dispute, is owned by the Heirs of Al-Solaiman, and is leased to Aramco Company. This transcript is signed by a representative of Al-Solaiman Heirs and a representative of Aramco Company.

■ A letter dated 13.04.1417H issued by the Governor of the Eastern Province that is addressed from the Crown Prince, Deputy Premier, stating the ownership of the land, the subject matter of dispute, by the Al- Solaiman family and that such land is leased to Aramco Company.

■ An undated letter, sent from Aramco Company to Sheikh/ Abdulaziz Abdullah Al- Solaiman, one of the Heirs of Abdullah Al-Solaiman, the Principal of the Claimants, in which it declares that it is leasing the plot of land owned by the Heirs of Al-Solaiman. In this letter, Aramco Company stated the following: 'Aramco Company showed no tolerance in defending its right as Lessee and your right as Lessors".

■ An undated letter, addressed by Aramco Company to the Principal of the Claimants, stating its approval to lease the land, the subject matter of the dispute, from its Owners, the Heirs of the Claimants.

■ An undated letter issued from Aramco Company to the Heirs of Abdullah Al- Solaiman, declaring that the land, the subject matter of dispute, is leased to the company by its Owners, Principals of the Claimants, namely: Late/ Abdullah Al-Solaiman, late/ Hamad Al-Solaiman and late/ Khalid Abu Al- Waleed.

Moreover, the Claimants submitted a number of documents showing that their Principals owned the land, subject matter of dispute, these are:

■ On 05.07.1376H, a judgment was passed in the Case No. 497 dated 05.07.1376H, deciding that: "The land, subject matter of the Deed No. 124 dated 23.09.1368 is owned by Bin Solaiman & Partners and it is leased to Aramco Co. ".

■ A letter dated 24th Safar 1407H sent from Aramco Company to the Heirs of the Claimants, declaring thereby that the Claimants are the owners of the land, the subject matter of dispute, as per Deed No. 124, dated 20th Ramadan 1368H.

■ The final Judgment No. 171/200/20, issued on 18.07.1407H establishing that the land, subject matter of dispute, is a pure ownership of Heirs of Abdullah Al-Solaiman, in the Estate Division Case, filed by the Heirs of Hamad Al-Solaiman.

■ The order issued from His Royal Highness, late/ Prince Naif Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, the Crown Prince, Minister of Interior, and Deputy Premier of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, as per Cable No. 32346, dated 22.03.1433H, circulated to three Governmental Departments, to instruct Aramco Company to pay the delayed rental payment since the expiry of the Concession Agreement, and to handover the land to the Heirs of the Claimants or to compensate them.

■ The Claimants also submitted several documents supporting the value of compensation they claim for failure to hand them over the land they own, the subject matter of dispute. These documents are as follows:

■ A scientific study, prepared by Saudi banks, estimating the growth of the land value in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia at a rate ranging between 7% and 9% annually to the last ten (10) years. The documents are prepared in the English language.

■ A letter for agricultural land expropriation representing a case similar to the Case of the land owned by the Claimants.

■ A letter dated 22.03.1433H sent from the Minister of Petroleum to His Majesty the King of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, admitting the ownership of the land, the subject matter of dispute, by Al-Solaiman family and stating compensating them for the non recovery of the land would cost the State Billions of Riyals.

■ A set of letters of various dates, sent from the Claimants to Aramco Company and to several concerned authorities in the Kingdom claiming the rental value of the land, subject matter of the existing dispute, and requesting compensation for non-recovery of the land, as Owners thereof, these are:

• A letter to His Excellency the Minister of Petroleum, dated 07.02.1428H.

• A letter to His Royal Highness Prince Naif Bin Abdulaziz, Minister of Interior, Deputy Premier and Second Deputy of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia dated 07.04.2011G.

• A letter sent to His Royal Highness Prince Naif Bin Abdulaziz, Minister of Interior, Deputy Premier and Second Deputy of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia dated 08.01.2012G.

• A letter sent to His Royal Highness Prince Naif Bin Abdulaziz, Minister of Interior, Deputy Premier and Second Deputy of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, dated 26.04.2012G.

■ Reports prepared by real estate experts in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, submitted by the Claimants to the International Arbitration Center on 07.03.2015G. True copies of such reports were delivered to the selected domicile of the Claimants in Cairo, and the Respondents were notified of such reports on 11.03.2015G by express mail (DHL), in connection with the evaluation of the rental value (per square meter) of the land, subject matter of this dispute. Such reports were submitted in a file of documents to the Arbitration Panel in its Hearing held on 28.03.2015G.

■ Reports prepared by real estate experts in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia submitted by the Claimants to the International Arbitration Center on 07.05.2105G. Such reports were delivered to the selected domicile of the Respondents in Cairo, and they were notified thereof on 11.03.2015G by express mail company (DHL), w ith regard to the evaluation of the price per square meter of the land, subject matter of dispute. Such reports were submitted in a documents file to the Arbitration Panel at the Hearing of 28.03.2015G.

■ A plan of the location showing the boundaries of the plots of land, subject matter of dispute,

■ A "Fatwa" (Shari’ah opinion) issued by "Dar Al-Ifta" (House of Legal Opinions), in the Arab Republic of Egypt, addressing the Lease Relationship under Islamic Shari’ah, dated 02.06.1998G submitted to the International Arbitration Center on 19.03.2015G. Such document was delivered to the Respondents at their selected domicile in Cairo, and they were notified accordingly on 21.03.2015G, by express mail (DHL).

■ Elements of the Lease Contract of the land, subject matter of dispute and a receipt of rental value payment covering the period during which the land was leased to Aramco Co. by the Principal of the Claimants.

■ Details of the Seaport of Ras Tanourah which is located inside the land, subject matter of dispute.

■ Volume of the Saudi oil out of the total volume of international oil.

The closing claims of the Claimants, as stated in their closing Defense Brief, are as follows:

First:

Binding the company, the Respondents, jointly with their successors to pay a sum of SR. 35,896,500,000 (Thirty-Five Billion Eight Hundred Ninety-Six Million Five Hundred Thousand Saudi Riyals) as compensation for the value of the land, the subject matter of dispute, which area amounts to 39,885,000 m² (Thirty-Nine Million Eight Hundred Eighty-Five Thousand Square Meters) for the impossibility of handing over the land to the Claimants.

Second:

Binding the Respondents jointly with their successors to pay a sum of SR. 3,589,650,000 (Three Billion Five Hundred Eighty-Nine Million and Six Hundred-Fifty Thousand Saudi Riyals) per annum as compensation against the rental value of the right of use (usufruct) since the 2005G, being the date of expiry of the Contract until the complete execution. Accordingly, the total value of ten (10) years would be SR. 35,896,500,000 (Thirty-Five Billion Eight Hundred Ninety-Six Million Five Hundred Thousand Saudi Riyals)

Third:

Binding the Respondents jointly with their successors to pay a sum of SR. 3,589,650,000 (Three Billion Five Hundred Eighty-Nine Million Six Hundred-Fifty Thousand Saudi Riyals) per annum. Accordingly, the total value for ten (10) years would be SR. 35,896,500,000 (Thirty-Five Billion Eight Hundred Ninety-Six Million Five Hundred Thousand Saudi Riyals) as compensation against the usufruct of a part of the land totaling 3,200,000 m² (Three Million Two Hundred Thousand Square Meters) representing the area of Ras Tanourah Seaport. This is the part which was for sure exploited of the land since the Year 1949G, the date of the Lease Contract until the complete execution since the Lease Contract did not provide for granting the Respondents the power to exploit the land.

Fourth:

Binding the Respondents jointly with their successors to pay a sum of SR 1000,000,000 (One Billion Saudi Riyals) as compensation against the physical and moral damages incurred.

Fifth:

The invalidity of any action carried out based on the fact of the Company’s existence on the land since the date of the Lease Contract until the complete execution.

Sixth:

The enforcement of the award, with all its elements, against the successors of the Respondents.

Seventh:

Binding the Company - the Respondents - to pay all arbitration and legal fees.

The Respondents failed to appear in any of the Arbitration Hearings although they were notified of all the Hearings, the transcripts thereof and the defense briefs and documents submitted thereat. However, they submitted Defense Brief and failed to submit any other documents supporting their defense. Such briefs are as follows:

■ On 05.07.2014G, Al-Ebrashi & Co. Law Firm submitted a defense brief for the Respondents. Under such brief, it objected to the admissibility of the claims and the competence of the Arbitration Panel that would be selected in accordance with the appointment notice issued on 05.07.2014G. Said Office relied, in such defense, on the fact that the notices sent to the Respondents did not specify who are the Claimants in such Arbitration, and objected also to the fact that the Claimants used the letterhead of the International Arbitration Center in their correspondence. It requested the said Center to confirm that it is neutral, independent and is not favoring either Party of the dispute. The Respondents’ defiance also confirmed in its brief that the notices it received did not specify the alleged contractual rights and failed to produce any supporting evidence. The Respondents' defense added that no contact information was provided w ith regard to the Claimants or their legal advisors and also the Claimants did not send Chevron Entities any request for arbitration giving the causes therefore. The Respondents' defense further indicated that the Claimants did not provide, with the notices, neither the Concession Agreement of 03.05.1933G nor the alleged Lease Contract. The Respondents' defense objected as well to involving Chevron Entities in any arbitration agreement with those Claimants, and added that no agreement was reached as to the place or language of arbitration, or the rules to be applied. The Respondents’ defense stated that Chevron Entities were never, at any time, a party in any disputes.

The defense of the Respondents added, in item No. 9 of the above mentioned brief, under the title "Appointment of an Arbitrator".. that Chevron Entities, as a precautionary measure, nominates Prof. Mohammad Abdul- Wahab as Arbitrator, and stated his address, electronic mail and phone numbers.

Such brief was signed by a person called "Mohammad Madkoor".

■ On 21.08.2014G, Zulfaqqar & Co. Legal Consultants and Advocates sent a letter to the International Arbitration Center, signed by Dr. Mohammad Salah El-Deen Abdul-Wahab, the Arbitrator appointed for the Respondents, "Chevron Entities", and agreed to be appointed as Arbitrator for the Respondents and asked the International Arbitration Center to provide some clarifications. These are:

- Clarifying the procedural rules and the subjective law applicable to the dispute.

- Sending the Arbitration Notice and the attachments thereof, in addition to any answer submitted by the Respondents, stating the language and place of arbitration and clarifying whether Dr. Ahmad Sadiq Al- Qushairy agreed to be appointed as arbitrator for the Claimants.

- On 31st August 2014, Zulfaqqar & Co. Legal Consultants and Advocates sent a letter to the International Arbitration Center, signed by Dr. Mohammad Salah Eldeen Abdul-Wahab, the Arbitrator appointed for the Respondents, stating that he was in the process of reviewing the notice sent to him by the International Arbitration Center and that he would notify this Center of the appointment of the Umpire in due course, after coordination with Dr. Ahmad Sadiq Al-Qushairy, the Arbitrator appointed by the Claimants.

The defense of the Respondents did not provide any documents.

The briefs of the above mentioned Respondents contained a formal claim, namely: insisting that Chevron Entities are not a party in any arbitration agreement or in the contract brought before the Arbitration Panel, and that the International Arbitration Center has no competence to consider this dispute.

After reviewing the briefs and documents contained in the Case File, Hearing the verbal arguments and legally conducted deliberations, the Arbitration Panel hereby gives the following Award:

With regard the form of the existing Arbitration Case, the Arbitration Panel shall address the scope of effectiveness of the Arbitration Clause, provided for under Article 31 of the Concession Agreement concluded between the Saudi Government and the Saudi Arabian Oil Company (Standard Oil of California), in term of the persons and the subject, and shall decide thereof.

The Arbitration Panel shall also address the Parties to the Arbitration Case brought before it in order to specify them.

The Arbitration Panel shall address the law applicable to the procedures and subject of this Arbitration Case, the language of arbitration and the place of convening the Arbitration Panel in order to decide on the same before deciding on the subject of the Case.

As for the enforcement of the above mentioned Arbitration Clause on Parties of Arbitration, the Arbitration Panel hereby paves the way for its judges to present the approach of judicial bodies in that regard.

It is established under judicial judgments and arbitration awards that the Arbitration Clause extends to each person participating in the execution of the contract providing for such Clause and has not physically signed it. The participation by a person in the execution of the Lease Contract is deemed full acceptance by such person and consent by him/it to the Arbitration Clause provided for therein (Judgment by the Court of the International Chamber of Commerce, issued on 23rd September 1982G, published in the Arbitration Magazine, issued in the French language in the year 1984G - Page 137). (Judgment by the Court of Appeal. Paris, issued on 21st October 1983G published in the Arbitration Magazine, issued in the French language - 1984, Page 98). (The Judgment issued in the Arbitration Case No. 109 of 1988, issued by Cairo Regional Office for International Commercial Arbitration, at the Hearing of 11.03.1999G. Arab Arbitration Magazine, 1999, Issue 2 - Page 224) (Egyptian Court of Cassation - the two challenges No. 4729 of 72G and 4730 of 1972G, respectively, the Hearing of 22,06,2004G. Section 55, Page 638) (Legal Principles of the Court of Cassation in the Commercial Arbitration, Judges Club, Issue of the year 2014G. Page 58).

By applying the principle of extending the Arbitration Clause, provided for under the Contract, to any person sharing in the execution, to the facts of the existing dispute, it is evident, and established by the documents, that the Principals of the Claimants actually and really shared in the execution of the Concession Agreement, which contains the Arbitration Clause in its Article 31, as they assigned the use of the land, subject matter of the concession, to the Company that was granted the concession in order to enable the Company to execute its obligations under the Concession Agreement, as established under Item 25 of the Said Agreement, and under the Registered Contract (the Title Deed) No. 124, Volume 2 of 1368H, as without such assignment, the Company holding the Concession would have not been able to execute its obligations.

Such actual and real participation by the Principals of the Claimants in the execution of the Concession Agreement, which contains the Arbitration Clause, leads to extending such Clause to that Principal, and from him to his heirs, a matter that enforces the said Clause on the Claimants, and the Arbitration Panel hereby so decides, without stating the same in the text of its Award.

As for the enforcement of the Clause, provided for in Article 31 of the Concession Agreement, concluded on 29th July 1933G, between the Saudi Government and the Saudi Arabian Oil Company (Standard Oil of California), as being the Respondents, it is established under the Registered Contract (the Title Deed) No. 124, Volume 2 of 1368H, that the rights were conveyed in favor of the Company holding the Concession, namely: The Arab American Oil Company, and the said Deed provides under the title "Transfer in favor of the Arab American Oil Company", what stipulates:

"In consideration of the good compensation to be paid to us. we the undersigned, for our property under the Deed No. 154/8, for the plots of land set forth above, each of us, in his personal capacity and on behalf of his heirs, guardians and lawful representatives, hereby grant and transfers to the Arab American Oil Company, referred to in the Deed above, its successors and whomever it appoints, the right to use and occupy the plots of land mentioned above,for all the purposes of the Saudi Arabian Concession Agreement, dated 4th Safar 1352H that corresponds to 29th July 1933G, and any other agreements to be annexed thereto. We hereby further declare and state that the rights of the Company (the Arab American Company) to use and occupy the said plots of land arise pursuant to Article 25 of the said Concession Agreement..."

Pursuant to such provision, Standard Oil of California Company is itself the Arab American Oil Company (Aramco), i.e.: the Concession Agreement concluded between the Saudi Government and the Saudi Arabian Oil Company, and accordingly the Arbitration Clause, provided for in Article 31 of such Agreement, applies thereto, and also applies to its successors.

Therefore, and whereas it is evidenced on the official website of Chevron Company :

"Since the Arab American Oil Company has started its second century, it has become one of the leading companies in the United States of America, and it owns the Trademark "Chevron" which has become famous and reputable worldwide, and Chevron Company, by the year 1993, has become the first major western oil company".

This means that Chevron Company was established and affiliated several entities, of which are, the Arab American Oil Company (Aramco). the Saudi Arabian Chevron Company and Chevron Company, as it is evidenced under the Deed No. 124, Volume 2 of 1368H, that the owners of the land, the subject matter of that Deed, granted the Arab American Oil Company or whatever succeeds it the right to use the land, the subject matter of the said Deed, and therefore Chevron Entities, being part of the said entities, are deemed to be a party to the Arbitration Clause provided for under Article 31 of the above mentioned Concession Agreement.

It is established under jurisprudence and judicial principles that the Arbitration Clause provided for in a contract concluded with a company extends to the other companies affiliated with such company, and is deemed one of its entities, if all such entities shared in the execution of such contract. (Dr. Mohammad Noor Shehatah, "Concept of Third Parties in Arbitration", Version of 2001 G., Page 130, the Arab Dar Al-Nahdah).

(Judgment of the French Court of Cassation passed on 27th March 2007G and published in the Commercial Law Seasonal Magazine 2007G, Page 677).

Chevron Entities explicitly admitted that they are a genuine party to the existing arbitration and they produced a power of attorney on 15th October 2014G, for which a deposit transcript was made under No. 1408/A. on 2nd February 2015G, at Shubra Notarization Office, in favor of a group of attornesy at Al-Ebrashi & Co. Law Firm. The text of said power of attorney provided for the following:

"On Wednesday that corresponds to 15th October 2014G, we Chevron Corporation, a corporation established in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware. United States of America (Principal),operating in the field of energy in the United States of America,with its head office located at 6001,Bolinga Canyon San Romano Road,CA. 94583 2324, United State of America, represented by Mr.Garry H. Andreas, in his capacity as Assistant Secretary, legally authorized to produce this power of attorney, hereby constitute and authorize Mr. Ashraf Hassan Zaki Al-Ebrashi. Mr. Mohammad Yasir Jadallah, Mr Mohammad Ahmed Hani Madkoor, Mrs. Deemiah Ziyad Abdul-Fallah Haijer, Mrs.Deemah Tariq Mohammad Al-Janzouri and Mr. Hatim HassanTulbah Mohammed, with (heir office located at 4. Al-Sadd Al-A'aliStreet, Al-Dokki, Guiza 12311, Egypt, jointly or severally,to represent the Principal and to attend, on its behalf, in the Arbitration Case filed by Al-Qarqani and others against Aramco.Chevron, Chevron Saudi Arabia and others.... ".

The fact that Chevron Entities authorized lawyers to represent them and to attend on their behalf in the Arbitration Case filed by Al-Qarqani and others against Aramco, Chevron, Chevron Saudi Arabia and others, means two things:

The First: Chevron Entities explicitly admitted that they are a genuine party in the existing Arbitration because issuing the power of attorney in favor of attorneys to represent them and to attend on their behalf in this Arbitration Case only means that such entities declare and admit that they are a genuine party to the said Arbitration Case, because according to the well established principles in litigation in arbitration, it is impermissible to interfere with or include in arbitration, and attending in Arbitration Case is exclusively limited to the parties subject to the arbitration clause, and the term "Chevron Entities", as clarified previously by the Arbitration Panels, are Chevron of USA, Chevron Saudi Arabia and Aramco.

The Second: Such power of attorney assigns attorneys to attend in the said Arbitration Case and to plead for Chevron Entities, including Aramco, Chevron of USA, Chevron Saudi Arabia, as. per the wording of the said power of attorney because such case is tiled against them all

This means that such entities have the genuine capacity as Respondents in the Arbitration Case.

Based on the above, Chevron Corporation, together with its entities ('"Chevron Entities) have become a genuine party to the Arbitration Clause provided for under Article 31 of the Concession Agreement, signed on 29th July 1933G and such Clause applies to them and they should comply therewith. The Arbitration Panel hereby so decides, without stating that in the text of its award.

This judgment is considered an answer to the defense raised by Chevron Corporation, stated in its brief sent to the International Arbitration Center on 05.07.2014G, whereby it alleges that it is neither a party to any contract brought before the Arbitration Panel nor a party to the above mentioned Arbitration Clause.

The Arbitration Panel hereby rejects such defense, without the need to repeat this judgment in the text of its award.

As for determining the Claimants, it is established under the Title Deed No.124, Volume 2 of 1368H that His Excellency Sheikh/ Hamad Al-Solaiman Al-Hamdan assigned his share of the said land, stated under the said Deed, to his brother Sheikh/ Abdullah Al-Solaiman Al-Hamdan, as per the Deed issued at Makkah Public Notary Office under No. 865 KH, dated 08.07.1375H.

Accordingly, three-quarters (3/4) of the land, the subject matter of the Deed No. 124, Volume 2 of 1368H has become the ownership of Sheikh/ Abdullah Al-Solaiman Al-Hamdan, and the remaining one-quarter (1/4) has become the ownership of Khalid Abu Al-Waleed Al-Qarqani (Principals of the Claimants), and thus the Claimants have become the heirs of late Khalid Abu Al-Waleed Al-Qarqani and the heirs of late Abdullah Al-Solaiman Al-Hamdan.

The Claimants submitted a detailed statement, as heirs of late Sheikh/ Abdullah Al-Solaiman and late Khalid, and also submitted Shari'ah Deeds of Inheritance proving their right in the estate. They attended, in person and in their capacity, and submitted powers of attorney for their representatives to attend in this Arbitration. All Parties to the Arbitration are mentioned by name at the beginning of this Award, and also all their particulars are attached.

As for the competence of the International Arbitration Center to consider the existing dispute, the two Parties to the dispute agreed that it is so competent. The Respondents have appointed, as their Arbitrator, Dr. Mohammad Salah Abdul-Wahab who accepted such appointment. This fact is confirmed by the Respondents as his acceptance was received on the letterhead of the Law Office, namely: Zulfaqqar & Co. Consultants % Advocates, in its capacity as the attorney for the Respondents. This is not to be prejudiced by the objection expressed under the defense of the Respondents as per the brief sent to the International Arbitration Center on 05.07.2014G.

Furthermore, the appointment of Dr. Mohammad Salah Al-Deen Abdul-Wahab, as Arbitrator for the Respondents, his acceptance of such appointment and the request of documents from the International Arbitration Center, all that constitutes a waiver by such Parties of all such objections. All the above mentioned objections are related to alleging that the Respondents have never been a party to the Arbitration Clause or to any of the contracts brought before the Arbitration Panel. The Arbitration Panel previously refused all these defenses, and hereby refers to its previous views, without need to repeat that in the text of its award.

With regard to determining the law applicable to the procedures and to the subject of the dispute, it is established under all comparative laws that the issue depends on the agreement of the Parties. In case they fail to agree, the Arbitration Panel determines such applicable laws.

Paragraph 2 of Article 25 of the Saudi Arbitration Law, issued under the Royal Decree No. M/34, dated 24.05.1433H provides for the following: "If there is no agreement as to the arbitration procedures, then the Arbitration Panel shall select the arbitration procedures it deems appropriate".

Therefore, and as the two Parties failed to agree on such procedures, the Arbitration Panel selected the procedures provided for under the said Arbitration Law, supplements by the regulations of the International Arbitration Center, as being the most appropriate procedures for passing an award on this dispute, taking into account that the Parties to the dispute are of the Saudi nationality and the land, the subject matter of the exiting dispute, is in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Accordingly, the Arbitration Panel’s decision in that regard came in compliance with the proper law as the Panel deemed such procedural rules appropriate for the case. Furthermore, Article 28 of the above mentioned Saudi Arbitration Law provides that in case the two parties fail to agree on the place of holding the arbitration, then the Arbitration Panel shall determine such place. The Arbitration Panel selected the city of Cairo, Arab Republic of Egypt, as the place for conducting the arbitration. In that regard also its decision came in compliance with the provision of law.

As for determining the language of Arbitration, Article 29 of the Saudi Arbitration Law provides that arbitration should be conducted in the Arabic language unless the Arbitration Panel decides, or the two relevant parties to the arbitration agree on, another language.

Therefore, the exiting arbitration was conducted in the Arabic language, and this is deemed in compliance with the general principle provided for under the above mentioned Article 29 which provides that the general principle is that the arbitration language is to be the Arabic language.

As for determining the law applicable to the subject matter of the exiting arbitration, the Arbitration Panel decided to apply the provisions of the Saudi laws because the two Parties failed to agree on such law, taking into account that such provisions are most relevant to the subject matter under dispute because the Claimants and the Respondents are of the Saudi nationality, and the place of dispute is in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and it was so decided in application of Paragraph 3 of Article 38 of the Saudi Arbitration Law which provides for the following:

"If the two parties to the arbitration fail to agree on the supervisory rules applicable to the subject matter of dispute, then the Arbitration Panel shall apply the objective rules in the law which it deems most relevant to the subject matter of dispute.... "

As for the procedures of the exiting Arbitration Case, the Arbitration Panel hereby decides that such procedures were conducted pursuant to the valid law. It is decided under the law and well established judicial practice that in case of change of a member of the Arbitration Panel, and replacing him with another arbitrator, at the time of keeping the case for giving an award, the Arbitration Panel shall re-open the door for argument in application of the legal rule provided for in all comparative laws, which rule provides that the persons who give the award should have heard the arguments, and this is provided for under the Saudi Shari'ah Pleadings Law, issued under the Royal Decree No. M/1, dated 22.03.1435H under Article 160 thereof. Such Article provides for the following:

"If there is more than one judge, then deliberations on passing the judgments should be confidential. Except for the provision of Article 62 of this Law, deliberations should be conducted only among the judges who heard the argument".

The concept of this provision is also stated in Article 167 of the Egyptian Procedural Law.

Such Article provides for the following:

"Only the judges who heard the argument have the right to participate in the deliberations, otherwise the judgment shall be invalid".

When applying this principle, decided under the law and established according to jurisprudence and judicial rules, on the facts of the exiting dispute, it is evident, according to the papers of the exiting case, and the contents of the transcript of the Hearing held on 18.05.2015G that the Legal Consultant, Abdul-Nasir Mohammad Abdul-Hameed Khattab, sent a notice to the International Arbitration Center, before giving the award in this Arbitration Case, notifying the Center that he withdrew from considering that Case, and stated that he did not conduct any deliberations with the members of the other Arbitration Panel and did not agree on any form or content of the Award to be given, particularly as one of the Panel’s members is of Jordanian nationality and resides in Jordan outside the Arab Republic of Egypt, and therefore the Arbitration Panel had to re-open the door for argument and to suspend giving the award in order for the replacement Arbitrator to hear the argument, particularly as such replacement Arbitrator, namely Dr. Abu Al-Ela Ali Abu Al-Ela Al-Nimr, was appointed, accepted the assignment and declared that he is neutral and independent before the convening of the Hearing of 18.05.2015G and the Arbitration Panel and the Umpire knew all that. However, the Umpire acted in violation of this rule provided for under all comparative procedural laws in that regard, and the Umpire of the Arbitration Panel issued the Award although he had access to such notice sent by the Legal Consultant, Abdul Nasir Mohammad Khattab, and although he was aware of the appointment of the replacement Arbitrator and his acceptance of the assignment before the Hearing of 18.05.2015G. All such events are established in the trasncript of the Hearing of 18.05.2015G which are signed by all members of the Panel, including the Arbitrator appointed by the Respondents, namely Dr. Abu Al-Ela Al-Nimr. Therefore, the Award given by the Umpire of the Arbitration Panel unilaterally has become totally null and void, without any legal effect, and the issue thereof does not end the arbitration procedures. Moreover, such Award was not lodged with the International Arbitration Center pursuant to the applicable legal procedures for lodging awards of arbitration as provided for under the above mentioned Article 44 of the Saudi Arbitration Law.

The other two Arbitrators held a Hearing on 18.05.2015G at which they selected as new Umpire, Mr. Mohammad Al-Shahhat Al-Sayed, an attorney at the Courts of Cassation. The newly formed Arbitration Panel held a Hearing on 19.05.2015G at which it decided to re-open the door for argument at a Hearing to be held on 27.05.2015G. At such Hearing, the Arbitration Panel decided to close the door for argument and to keep the Case for giving its Award at a Hearing to be held on 03.06.2015G.

Consequently, and based on all the foregoing, the Arbitration Panel hereby decides that the procedures for conducting the arbitration are valid and proper and that it is competent to consider the exiting Arbitration Case in execution of the principle of "Competence by Competence", according to which the Arbitration Panel is deemed competent to decide with regard to its competence, as will be stated in the text of the Award.

As for the non-appearance of the Respondents in the Arbitration Hearings, it is established under the documents submitted and kept in the file of the Case that they were properly and legally notified of all such Hearings and the documents submitted thereat but they failed to appear.

Since Article 34/2 of the Saudi Arbitration Law, applicable to the procedures of this Arbitration, provides for the following:

"If the defendant fails to submit a written answer containing his defense, pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article 30 of the said Law, then the Arbitration Panel should continue in the arbitration procedures unless the two Parties to the arbitration agree otherwise. If either Party fails to attend a Hearing, after notifying him, or fail to submit the documents required from him, then the Arbitration Panel may continue the procedures of arbitration and give an award in the dispute relying on the supporting elements available to the Panel".

In application of such provision, the Arbitration Panel, having ascertained that the Respondents were duly notified of all the Arbitration Hearings and all the documents submitted thereat, decided to continue the Arbitration procedures and to give an Award in respect thereof relying on the supporting elements available thereto. Accordingly, the Arbitration Panel hereby decides that it is rightful in continuing the procedures and that it is rightful in relying on such supporting elements available thereto, without need to state that in the text of the Award.

As for the possibility of subjecting the exiting dispute to arbitration, the claims expressed by the Claimants are represented in compensation for their non-recovery of the land, the subject matter of this Case, and the failure of the Respondents to pay the due and payable rental value for using such land, and these are financial claims that reconciliation may be made in respect thereof, Accordingly, arbitration can be applied in this regard in application of the provision of Article 2 of the Saudi Arbitration Law which provides for the following:

"The provisions of this Law do not apply to disputes relating to family affairs and issues in respect of which reconciliation may not be made

Based on the violation concept, issues in respect of which reconciliation may be made, they may also be subject to arbitration.

As for the fifth claim of the Claimants, namely: deciding the invalidity of any actions made based on the Company’s existence on the land, since the date of the Lease Contract and until the complete execution, this claim relates to real estate real rights in respect of which reconciliation may not be made, consequently, the Arbitration Panel provides the non-acceptance of this claim as will be clarified in the text of the award.

As for the subject of the Case and the claims filed in connection therewith, the issue brought before the Arbitration Panel, in respect of such subject and such claims, is the compensation for the breach by the Respondents of their obligations stated under two contracts, namely: The Contract of Ownership by the Claimants of the land, the subject matter of this Case, and the Lease Contract concluded between them and the Respondents.

The Arbitration Panel shall first decide on the existence of such two Contracts and how far they are valid before deciding on the claims submitted by the Claimants in relation to such two Contracts.

As for the said Lease Contract, it is one of the voluntarily-made contracts in respect of which the rulings of Islamic Shari’ah do not require drafting it in a certain form, and accordingly it may be established with all means of proof. It is confirmed under the documents included in this Case file that such contract exists, is valid and satisfies all required elements and conditions. This Contract was concluded between the Claimants and the Respondents in the form of the Title Deed of the leased land No. 124, Volume 2 of 1368H. Under the title "Transfer to the Arab American Oil Company", the following is stated in such Deed:

"In consideration of the good compensation to be paid to us, we the undersigned, for our property under the Deed No. 154/8, for the plots of land set forth above, each of us, in his personal capacity and on behalf of his heirs, guardians and lawful representatives, hereby grant and transfers to the Arab American Oil Company, referred to in the Deed above, its successors and whomever it appoints, the right to use and occupy the plots of land mentioned above, for all the purposes of the Saudi Arabian Concession Agreement, dated 4th Safar 1352H that corresponds to 29th July 1933G, and any other agreements to be annexed thereto. We hereby further declare and state that the rights of the Company to use and occupy the said plots of land arise pursuant to Article 25 of the said Concession Agreement and we hereby also agree to safeguard the said Company, its successors and whomever it appoints against all claims, whether in the past present time or in future, by anyone claiming interest in any of the said plots of land"

Such text included all elements and items of the Lease Contract concluded between the Claimants and the Respondents, in terms of the Parties to such Contract, its place, the due and payable rental value and the obligations to be borne by each of the two Parties thereto. It specifies the Parties, namely the Principals of the Claimants (Lessors) and the Arab American Oil Company (Lessee), and thus the said Lease Contract passed to the Respondents.

Based on the above, the two parties to such Contract are the Principals of the Claimants and the Respondents. The subject matter of such Contract is the plots of land stated in the Title Deed No. 124, Volume 2 of 1368H, the rental value agreed upon is a good and valuable consideration, and it is subject to evaluation. It is decided under the rulings of Islamic Shari’ah that the rental value may be evaluated or can be evaluated. As for the valid term of such Contract, it commenced on 20.03.1949G as stated in the said Title Deed and ended in the year 2005, being the expiry date of the term of the Concession Agreement. Moreover, the above mentioned Lease Contract provided for a commitment on the part of the Principals of the Claimants to ensure the non-legal obstruction to the Lessee Company.

All the correspondence exchanged between the Claimants and the Respondents conclusively proves that the predecessor of the Respondents is the Arab American Oil Company, being the Lessee. The latter Company, in its capacity as Lessee, admitted that fact in several correspondence signed and issued by it. All such documents were listed when the Arbitration Panel addressed the documents submitted by the two Parties. Furthermore, all official authorities in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia admitted the existence of such Lease Contract. The Arbitration Panel, in this regard, refers to the documents it listed above in this Award in order to avoid repetition.

Therefore, the Lease Contract made between the Principals of the Claimants and the Respondents satisfies all required elements proving its existence, and meets all Shari’ah and legal requirements in order to be deemed valid and proper.

Based on the above and since the said Lease Contract was properly concluded, in terms of all its elements, the Arbitration Panel hereby decides that it is valid and effective, without stating that in the text of the Award, provided that this shall be complementary to the text of the award and forms an integral part thereof.

In respect of the ownership of the Claimants to the plots of land, the subject matter of this Arbitration Case, it is established under the Registered Contract (the Title Deed) No. 124, Volume 2 of 1368H that they fully own such plots of land. According to correspondence, in relating to such ownership, kept in the Case file, it is established that the ownership of the Claimants of such plots of land are still existing up to the date hereof. There are several letters exchanged between the Claimants and several governmental authorities in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, claiming compensation for the non-recovery of such plots of land. Such authorities instructed the concerned parties to finish and resolve such issue. However, this never happened. There is a letter issued by the Saudi Minister of Petroleum, dated 04.02.2012G kept in the Case file, which does not deny the ownership of the Claimants to such plots of land nor their right in compensation as a result of their non-recovery thereof, but refused such compensation relying on one reason, explicitly stated in the said letter, namely: That the compensation for such plots of land would cost the State billions of Riyals.

The ownership of the Claimants to the plots of land, the subject matter of this Case, is established under documents, and no one can dispute their ownership of such land. However, since it is absolutely impossible for the Claimants to recover such plots of land, due to the construction of buildings thereon and the huge petroleum projects executed on such land, the Claimants requested that they be compensated for the non-recovery of such land, and assessed such compensation, according to their final claims, at a sum of SR. 35,896,500,000 (Thirty-Five Billion Eight Hundred Ninety-Six Million Five Hundred Thousand Saudi Riyals) as a price for an area of 39,885,000 m² (Thirty-Nine Million Eight Hundred Eighty-Five Thousand Square Meters). Whereas no one has disputed the ownership of the Claimants to such area of land, therefore the Arbitration Panel shall decide on the price payable for such area as compensation for the Claimants for the non-recovery thereof.

Since the Respondents did not return the said land to the Claimants up to the date hereof, therefore they are deemed to have breached their obligation set forth under the Lease Contract concluded between the two sides on 21s1 March 1949G as by so acting the Respondents are deemed to be illegally maintaining such land and hence they are committed to pay the price thereof.

Since Articles 17 and 18 of the Basic Law of Governance in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia provide that ownership should be safeguarded, therefore the claim by the Claimants of compensation for the non-recovery of the land they own came in conformity with the proper Islamic Shari ah and the Saudi Basic Law of Governance.

The Claimants submitted three (3) reports, prepared by real estate experts in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, all of which are kept in the exiting Case file. One of such reports assessed the value per square meter at a sum of SR. 1,000, the second at a sum of SR. 900 and the third at SR. 850.

The Arbitration Panel shall adopt the report assessing the value per square meter at SR. 850. By multiplying that price by the total area of the land amounting to 39,885,000 m² (Thirty-Nine Million Eight Hundred Eighty-Five Square Meters) then the total price being the compensation for the non-recovery of such area of land, becomes SR. 33,902,250,000 (Thirty-Three Billion Nine Hundred Two Million Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Saudi Riyals).

Based on the foregoing, the Arbitration Panel hereby commits the Respondents to pay to the Claimants a sum of SR. 33,902,250,000 (Thirty-Three Billion Nine Hundred Two Million Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Saudi Riyals) as compensation for the non-recovery of the plots of land, the subject matter of this Case as set forth in the text of the Award.

Based on the foregoing, the Arbitration Panel hereby decides that the Claimants are entitled to the rental value due and payable thereto by the Respondents (Lessee) for the period from the year 2005 until the full settlement, taking into consideration that it is not established, under the documents submitted in this Case, that the Respondents paid such rental value since the year 2005 and up to date, and further the Respondents failed to submit any reply as to this claim, and therefore the Arbitration Panel hereby decides to commit the Respondents to pay such rental value for the such period.

As for the rental value due and payable to the Claimants by the Respondents, for the period from 2005 until the complete execution, the Claimants submitted a report prepared by the Golden Towers Office for Real Estate Development in the Kingdom (real estate experts), which report stated that the rental value of the leased land is about SR 85 (Eighty-Five Saudi Riyals) per square meter per annum, another report was submitted by the Claimants in that regard, which report assessed the said rental value at SR 90 (Ninety Saudi Riyals) per square meter per annum, prepared by Al-Khuzaim for Real Estate Services, and they submitted a third report prepared by Ibn Ashlan Real Estate Office, which report estimated the rental value per square meter per annum at SR 100 (One Hundred Saudi Riyals).

The Respondents were notified of such three (3) reports but failed to respond, and did not raise any objection as to the assessment of the rental value.

According to the discretionary power of the Arbitration Panel in that regard, being the higher expert, the Arbitration Panel hereby adopts the report which estimated the rental value at SR 85 (Eighty-Five Saudi Riyals) per square meter per annum based on the reasons given therein.

Since the total area of the land leased to the Respondents totals 39,885,000 square meters (Thirty-Nine Million Eight Hundred Eighty-Five Square Meters), therefore the total rental value due and payable to the Claimants, by the Respondents, for a period of ten (10) years, commencing from 2005G until the year 2015G., at the rate of SR 85 (Eighty-Five Saudi Riyals) annually per square meter become only SR. 33,390,225,000 (Thirty-Three Billion Three Hundred Ninety Million Two Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand Saudi Riyals), as will be stated in the text of the Award.

As for the Claim by the Claimants that the Respondents be committed to pay to the Claimants a sum of SR. 3,589,650,000 (Three Billion Five Hundred Eighty-Nine Million Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Saudi Riyals) as compensation for exploiting a part of the land at an area of 3,200,000 m² (Three Million Two Hundred Thousand Square Meters) representing the area of Ras Tanoura Seaport, the Arbitration Panel hereby rejects such Claim because such plot of land constitute a part of the total area of the land owned by the Claimants, and the compensation for the exploitation thereof by the Respondents is included in the compensation referred to above, and deciding compensation for the exploitation of such part of the land separately is deemed duplication of compensation, which matter is hereby rejected by the Arbitration Panel as will be stated in the text of the Award.

As for the claim of the Claimants that the Respondents be committed to pay a sum of SR 1,000,000,000 (One Billion Saudi Riyals) as compensation for the physical and moral damages the) incurred, the Arbitration Panel hereby rejects such claim based on that the amount decided as compensation for the non-recovery by the Claimants of the land is deemed to be covering all the physical and moral damages sustained by the Claimants as a result of the non- recovery of the land they own, particularly as the value of such land was assessed at the rate of today, and therefore the Arbitration Panel hereby rejects such Claim as will be stated in the text of the Award.

As for the Claim of the Claimants that any actions taken based on the occupation by the Company of the land, since the date of the Lease Contract until the complete execution, be rendered invalid, the Arbitration Panel hereby decides non-acceptance of that Claim because it is an issue of those in respect of which no arbitration may be conducted as it relates to real estate real rights in respect of which no settlement may be made, and consequently no arbitration may be conducted in respect thereof. Therefore, the Arbitration Panel hereby decides non-acceptance of this Claim as will be stated in the text of the Award.

As for the Claim of the Claimants that this Award, together with all the elements thereof, be valid and effective against the successors of the Respondents, such Claim does not need giving an independent award because at the time being there is no successor of the Respondents, and when there is a successor, this Award shall be valid and enforced as against it in application of the general rules of the transfer of rights and obligations, the subject matter of Arbitration, together with all the consequences, to the successor of the Respondents, and accordingly this Claim should be rejected.

As for the Claim of the Claimants that the Respondents be committed to pay all the arbitration and attorney’s fees, the Arbitration Panel hereby decides that the Respondents and the Claimants are committed to share the Arbitration fees (50/50). Such arbitration fees shall be assessed based on one-eighth percent (1/8 %) of the total value of the Claims of the Claimants, as will be stated in the text of the Award. Regarding the attorney’s fees, each Party shall pay the fees of his/its attorney s, as will be stated in the text of the Award.

The Arbitration Panel hereby ruled the followings:

First: The Arbitration Panel has the competence to consider this Arbitration Case.

Second: The Respondents are hereby committed to pay to the Claimants a sum of SR 33,902,250,000 (Thirty-Three Billion Nine Hundred Two Million and Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Saudi Riyals) as compensation for the non-recovery of the plots of land totaling an area of 39,885,000 m² (Thirty-Nine Million Eight Hundred Eighty-Five Square Meters).

Third: The Respondents are hereby committed to pay to the Claimants a sum of SR 33,390,225,000 (Thirty-Three Billion Three Hundred Ninety Million Two Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand Saudi Riyals) as rental value due and payable by the Respondents to the Claimants since the year 2005 G. until the date of giving this Award.

Fourth: Rejection of the Third Claim stated in the final defense brief of the Claimants.

Fifth: Rejection of the Fourth Claim stated in the final defense brief of the Claimants.

Sixth: Non-acceptance of the Fifth Claim stated in the final defense brief of the Claimants.

Seventh: Rejection of the Sixth Claim stated in the final defense brief of the Claimants.

Eight: The Claimants and the Respondents are committed to equally share the arbitration fees, assessed at one-eighth percent (1/8 %) of the total value of the Claims of the Claimants.

Ninth: Each of the Claimants and the Respondents is committed to bear their respective attorney’s fees.

Tenth: Rejection of all other claims.