Middle East Africa
KRG corrects Dana Gas' arbitration case statement
- KRG responds to Dana Gas after it released "misleading and incomplete" information on partial award in arbitration casern

The Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) received a partial ruling in the ongoing arbitration case with United Arab Emirates energy company, Dana Gas, the Ministry of Natural Resources said on Tuesday.

The KRG responded to Dana after the latter released "misleading and incomplete" information relating to the partial award.

Dana said the court ordered the KRG on Tuesday to pay $121.09 million to the claimants - Daha Gas, Crescent Petroleum and Pearl Petroleum Company Limited ('Pearl') for condensate and LPG by or on behalf of the KRG between June 30, 2015 and March 31, 2016.

"Further to a hearing in London on Sept. 5, 2016, the tribunal ruled on some of the claims by the parties. This is a partial award that does not finally determine all of the issues in the arbitration," the ministry said.

Dana’s press release omits to state that the tribunal ruled against the claimants in multiple important respects, the ministry said.

Some of the rulings that Dana omitted, that the tribunal rejected, are listed as below:

- The claimants’ claim for over $1.7 billion in respect of so called excess gas

- A claim that Dana and Crescent, two claimants in the case, had lost some $3.3 billion in respect of earn out payments they claimed they would otherwise have received

- Dana's claim that it could recover over $24 million in damages from the KRG as a result of emergency asset sales it allegedly undertook as a result of its financial difficulties.

Additionally, the tribunal declined to provide 18 of the 19 declarations the Claimants sought in relation to their alleged rights under the contract.

Dana’s press release is also materially misleading regarding Dana’s own performance, the ministry said.

"The tribunal did not find that the claimants managed and performed the project efficiently or well or there was no unreasonable delay in the claimants’ execution of the project. It merely found that the claimants’ management of the project progress did not amount to a breach of contract."

By Zeynep Beyza Kilic

Anadolu Agency




16 Feb,2017