User Account
- Personal Profile: Sign in
- or Create
- See all online law products
- Browse all
- Content type
-
- Commentary and analysis
- Book content
- Encyclopedia entries
- Notes
-
- International instruments and materials
- Treaties
- Supporting instruments
- Institutional rules
- Resolutions
- Declarations
- Model laws
- Subject
- Author
- Geographic region
- Organization
-
My Content
(0)
Recently viewed (0)
-
My Searches (0)
Recently viewed (0)
Subscriber sign in
- Headnote
- Decision [eng]
- Table of abbreviations and definitions
- I The Parties
- II Procedural history
- III Requests for relief
- IV Scope of this Award
- V Preliminary matters
- VI Ecuador’s motion for reconsideration
- VII Quantum
- 126
- 127
- A Overview of the Parties’ positions
- B Standard of Compensation
- C Categories of Compensable Losses
- 178
- 179
- 180
- 1 Past Law 42 dues
- 2 Value of the operating assets (lost profits under the PSCs)
- 3 Lost opportunity to extend the Block 7 PSC
- 3.1 Burlington’s position
- 235
- 3.1.1 The Tribunal has jurisdiction over this claim
- 3.1.2 In the “but for” world, Burlington would have enjoyed a right to negotiate the extension of the Block 7 PSC
- 3.1.3 Burlington would “in all probability” have obtained an eight-year extension under revised contractual terms
- 3.1.4 Tribunals have recognized the importance of lost opportunities in the valuation of an investment
- 3.2 Ecuador’s position
- 3.3 Analysis
- 3.1 Burlington’s position
- D Valuation
- 284
- 285
- 1 Overview of the Parties’ valuations
- 2 The DCF valuation method
- 3 Date of valuation
- 4 Should the economic effects of Law 42 be accounted for?
- 5 Computation of cash flows
- 369
- 5.1 The Updated Model
- 5.2 Variables and assumptions for cash flows
- 374
- 5.2.1 Production profile
- a Burlington’s position
- b Ecuador’s position
- c Analysis
- 409
- 410
- 411
- 412
- 413
- 414
- (i) Block 7
- (ii) Block 21
- 420
- 421
- 422
- (1) But for the expropriation and assuming that Ecuador complied with its tax absorption obligations, would the Consortium have continued drilling in Block 21?
- (2) How many new wells would reasonably have been drilled in Block 21?
- (3) When would drilling have resumed, and at what rate?
- (4) Production from incremental wells
- (iii) Ecuador’s objections to the use of the Updated Model to forecast production
- 5.2.2 Crude oil prices
- 5.2.3 Operating expenditures (OPEX)
- 5.2.4 Capital expenditures (CAPEX) and depreciation
- 5.2.5 Taxation
- 5.2.6 Sequence of variables in the DCF analysis
- 5.3 Computation of past and future cash flows
- 6 Burlington’s claim that the Award be protected against taxation
- E Must Compensation be Reduced to Account for Burlington’s Alleged Contribution to its Own Losses?
- 548
- 1 Ecuador’s position
- 1.1 As a matter of law, compensation must reflect the injured party’s contribution to its own losses
- 1.2 As a matter of fact, Burlington materially contributed to its own losses
- 2 Burlington’s position
- 3 Analysis
- F Post-Award Interest
- VIII Costs
- IX Operative part
- Decision PDF [eng]
- [3.237.205.144]
- 3.237.205.144
