Ascent Resources Plc and Ascent Slovenia Ltd v. Republic of Slovenia

At a glance

Parties

Ascent Resources Plc (UK) and Ascent Slovenia Ltd (Malta) v. Republic of Slovenia

Forum and rules

ICSID (the published press release refers to the ICSID website)

Treaty

UK–Slovenia BIT and Energy Charter Treaty

Sector

Oil and gas; hydraulic stimulation

Outcome

Pending on the published documents. The Tribunal rejected Slovenia's application for security for costs, as reported by the claimant in February 2024.

Amount

Claimed: €656.5 million (per Ascent's press release). The claimants state they invested more than €50 million.

The dispute

Ascent Resources Plc, a UK energy company, and its Maltese subsidiary Ascent Slovenia Ltd invested more than €50 million in developing the Petišovci oil and gas field. Ascent Slovenia held a 75% interest in a joint venture with the Slovenian company Geoenergo, which holds the field's licences and a 2002 concession. When Geoenergo applied in May 2017 for a screening assessment for low-volume hydraulic stimulation of wells PG-10 and PG-11A, the Slovenian Environmental Agency (ARSO) took almost two years to decide. On 8 March 2019 it decided that an environmental impact assessment was required. The claimants say the decision was arbitrary and politically motivated, and that it ran against the opinions of other State bodies. In 2022 Slovenia amended its Mining Law to ban all hydraulic stimulation for hydrocarbons. The claimants allege breaches of fair and equitable treatment and of the protection against impairment by arbitrary, unreasonable or discriminatory measures (BIT Article 2(2), ECT Article 10(1)), and unlawful expropriation (BIT Article 5, ECT Article 13).

Key holdings

1. The published documents contain no decision of the Tribunal itself. According to the claimant's London Stock Exchange announcement of 23 February 2024, the Tribunal rejected Slovenia's application for security for costs. Slovenia had argued that Ascent's after-the-event (ATE) insurance did not cover its potential costs adequately. No further security was ordered. Press release, p. 1
2. The claimants' notices state that Ascent Slovenia's rights under the 2013 Restated Joint Operating Agreement, the indirect rights to production under the licences and the concession, and Ascent UK's shares in Ascent Resources d.o.o. and Trameta d.o.o. are protected investments under the BIT and the ECT. These are the claimants' positions, not findings. Notice of Intent ¶¶ 2.6–2.7

Procedural history

1. 10 May 2017Geoenergo applies to ARSO for a preliminary screening assessment for low-volume hydraulic stimulation.
2. 8 March 2019ARSO decides that an environmental impact assessment is required. The Ministry of the Environment rejects Geoenergo's complaint on 10 June 2019, and the Administrative Court upholds the decision on 13 May 2020.
3. 23 July 2020Enyo Law notifies Slovenia of the dispute under the UK–Slovenia BIT and the ECT.
4. 21 October 2020Slovenia responds to the notice (as referred to in the later letter).
5. 5 May 2022Supplementary notice of dispute on the ban on hydraulic stimulation in the amended Mining Law, adopted on 6 April 2022 and in force from 5 May 2022. It adds an expropriation claim.
6. February 2024The Tribunal rejects Slovenia's application for security for costs, as reported in Ascent's announcement of 23 February 2024.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

For the claimant

Enyo Law LLP

For the respondent

Clifford Chance Deutschland LLP · State Attorney's Office of the Republic of Slovenia

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• Energy Charter Treaty
• UK–Slovenia BIT
• Petišovci
• gas field
• hydraulic stimulation
• fracking ban
• environmental impact assessment
• ARSO
• Geoenergo
• fair and equitable treatment
• arbitrary measures
• indirect expropriation
• security for costs
• ATE insurance
• Mining Law
• oil and gas

Summary generated with AI from the published documents — refer to the award for the authoritative text.