Petrogas Exploration & Production LLC v. The Kingdom of the Netherlands

At a glance

Parties

Petrogas Exploration & Production LLC (Oman) v. the Kingdom of the Netherlands

Case no.

PCA Case No. 2025-47

Forum and rules

Ad hoc arbitration administered by the PCA under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 2010 (as amended); seat London, England

Treaty

Netherlands–Oman BIT (signed 19 September 1987, in force 1 February 1989), Article 8

Tribunal

Prof. Campbell McLachlan KC (Presiding Arbitrator), Mr. Barton Legum, Prof. Hélène Ruiz-Fabri

Sector

Oil and gas

Outcome

Pending. The published documents are three procedural orders: on the applicable rules, on confidentiality and transparency, and granting the Respondent's request to bifurcate quantum (19 August 2026).

The dispute

Petrogas, an Omani company that describes itself as a family business, brought a claim against the Netherlands under the Netherlands–Oman BIT over two Dutch legislative measures, the Special Royalty and the Solidarity Contribution. The Claimant says the measures breached the treaty's investment treatment standards; it does not pursue an expropriation claim. Its damages claim includes indirect losses built on a counterfactual of hypothetical commercial transactions and broader European market conditions. The Netherlands has signalled threshold defences that contest whether various liability provisions of the BIT apply, and it does not seek to bifurcate jurisdiction. The published orders do not set out the merits pleadings in detail, and parts of Procedural Order No. 3 are redacted or missing from the published text.

Key holdings

1. The UNCITRAL Rules 2010 (as amended) apply. Article 8 of the Treaty names no rules, so no presumption arises from the Treaty or from the fact that only the 1976 Rules existed in 1987. The second sentence of Article 1(2) of the 2010 Rules removes its own presumption for offers made before 15 August 2010. A single order in Andraous v The Netherlands is not settled State practice. The Tribunal chose the 2010 Rules in exercise of its procedural mandate as the fairest and most efficient set of rules. PO No. 1, Annex 3, ¶¶ 12–21
2. The Respondent's first substantive pleading is its Statement of Defence. The Tribunal dispensed with the Answer to the Request required by Article 4 of the 2010 Rules. PO No. 1, ¶ 4.3; Annex 3, ¶ 23
3. Confidentiality is governed by the law of the arbitration agreement. Because that agreement derives from a standing treaty offer, it is governed by international law and not English law, even though the seat is in England. Neither the Treaty nor general international law imposes a duty of confidentiality, and the UNCITRAL Transparency Rules and the Mauritius Convention do not apply. PO No. 2, ¶¶ 16–18
4. Transparency regime. The PCA publishes all orders and decisions of the Tribunal, subject to agreed or ordered redactions. Only excerpts of awards that are of general legal interest may be published, which is the limit of the Parties' common consent under Article 34(5). Each Party may publish its own pleadings on 60 days' notice to the other. Evidence, third-party submissions and documents produced in document production stay confidential, and hearings are held in camera. PO No. 2, ¶¶ 28–34, 35
5. Bifurcation of quantum granted. The UNCITRAL Rules contain no presumption in favour of a single-phase arbitration. The Glamis Gold factors are relevant considerations but not a prescriptive test. The question is a weighing of fairness and efficiency against delay, wasted expense and prejudice. PO No. 3, ¶¶ 21–28
6. Quantum is separable from liability. Since there is no expropriation claim, liability does not require quantum-style analysis. The counterfactual indirect-loss claim rests on a different body of evidence, which distinguishes ExxonMobil v Netherlands. Preparing a response to that claim could be wholly wasted if the claim fails. PO No. 3, ¶¶ 37–43
7. The First Stage covers jurisdiction, liability and the principles of reparation. These include whether the Special Royalty and the Solidarity Contribution each proximately caused the pleaded loss, and which heads of loss are recoverable. Quantification follows in an expedited later phase if needed. The hearing remains fixed for 18–22 September 2028, and the costs of the bifurcation application are reserved. PO No. 3, ¶ 46

Procedural history

1. 28 May 2025The Claimant serves its Request for Arbitration under Article 8 of the Treaty, proposing ICSID arbitration under the ICSID Arbitration Rules 2022.
2. 20 and 25 November 2025The Parties notify the Tribunal that they have agreed on the UNCITRAL Rules instead, but they disagree on which version applies.
3. 28 January 2026The Tribunal issues signed Terms of Appointment.
4. 18 March 2026First Session held by video conference.
5. 29 March 2026Procedural Order No. 1: the Tribunal adopts the UNCITRAL Rules 2010 (as amended) and sets a preliminary calendar.
6. 24 April 2026The Claimant files its Statement of Claim with a quantum expert report.
7. 29 April 2026Procedural Order No. 2 on Confidentiality and Transparency.
8. 15 May 2026The Respondent files its Request for Bifurcation of quantum. The Parties agree that it should be decided on the papers.
9. 19 August 2026Procedural Order No. 3: the Tribunal bifurcates quantification of damages from jurisdiction, liability and the principles of reparation.
10. 18–22 September 2028Date fixed for the hearing.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Campbell McLachlan President
• Barton Legum Co-arbitrator
• Hélène Ruiz Fabri Co-arbitrator

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• Netherlands–Oman BIT
• oil and gas
• Special Royalty
• Solidarity Contribution
• bifurcation
• quantum
• causation
• counterfactual damages
• applicable version of UNCITRAL Rules
• UNCITRAL Rules 2010
• confidentiality
• transparency
• publication of procedural orders
• law governing arbitration agreement
• Arbitration Act 1996
• Glamis Gold
• ExxonMobil v Netherlands
• third-party funding disclosure

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