Call anytime+234 810 159 9159
The oil and gas industry is a vital driver of global economic activity. Its projects are transnational, highly capital-intensive, and governed by a complex web of commercial contracts, concession agreements, and investment treaties. Given this inherently international character, disputes in the sector often transcend national borders and involve parties from different jurisdictions. To manage such disputes efficiently and fairly, international arbitration has emerged as the preferred dispute resolution mechanism.
This article examines the rationale for arbitration in oil and gas disputes, the principal features that make it attractive, illustrative case law, and some of the challenges and evolving trends in the field.[1]
WHY ARBITRATION IS PREFERRED IN OIL & GAS DISPUTES
1. Neutrality and Avoidance of Local Court Biases:
Oil and gas projects often involve a host state (or its agencies) and one or more multinational corporations. The host state’s courts may be perceived as favoring domestic interests, having procedural limitations, or lacking specialized experience. Arbitration provides a neutral forum agreed by the parties, thereby reducing the risk of national-court bias or uncertainty.[2] In the context of oil-and-gas investment disputes in Nigeria, for example, it has been observed that arbitration is favoured because it “offers a neutral forum … parties come from different jurisdictions with varying legal systems” and local courts may be politically influenced.[3]
2. Enforceability of awards internationally:
Given that oil and gas assets and interests often span many jurisdictions, the ability to enforce a dispute-resolution outcome abroad is critical. Through instruments such as the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention, 1958), arbitral awards are more easily recognized and enforced globally than national court judgments[4]. As one commentator states: “the foremost advantage … is that an international arbitral award is enforceable virtually worldwide.”
This is especially relevant in oil and gas, where investment, infrastructure, and contracts cross borders and assets may be located in multiple jurisdictions.
3. Technical and industry-specific expertise of arbitrators:
The oil and gas sector involves highly specialized issues reservoir engineering, drilling operations, contract geology, production sharing agreements, taxation of hydrocarbons, decommissioning, etc. Arbitration allows parties to select arbitrators (or an arbitral tribunal) with specific industry experience and technical competence.
As one study describes, “Assurances regarding the expertise of the arbitrator’s familiarity with oil & gas contracts, lexicon, and nomenclature” are among the benefits of arbitration in this field. This capacity helps ensure fact-finding and legal decisions are rooted in the underlying technical reality of the sector rather than being treated as generic commercial disputes in courts unfamiliar with the trade.
4. Confidentiality and commercial sensitivity:
Oil and gas disputes often involve proprietary data (reservoir size, fiscal terms, strategic plans), sensitive state-investment information, or competitive issues that parties prefer to keep out of public court records. Arbitration offers confidentiality of proceedings and awards (depending on the clause and institutional rules)[5].
This confidentiality helps parties protect trade secrets, maintain reputations, avoid adverse publicity, and manage commercial risk. Separately, confidentiality may facilitate settlement talks, protecting business relationships and future collaborations.
5. Flexibility of procedure and party autonomy:
Arbitration allows parties to tailor the dispute-resolution process: choice of seat, governing law, institutional or ad-hoc rules, language, timetable, discovery rules, expert procedures, etc. This flexibility is especially valuable in oil & gas contracts, which are long-term, complex, and cross-jurisdictional.[6] For example, parties can agree on expedited procedures, tribunal composition with technical experts, and interim measures suited to the operational exigencies of exploration or production. This procedural autonomy supports commercial certainty and aligns dispute resolution with industry realities rather than domestic court constraints.
6. Finality and reduced risk of appeal:
Arbitral awards are typically final and binding, with limited avenues for appeal (depending on seat and governing law). For oil and gas stakeholders who face large-scale risk and long investment horizons, the shorter tail on litigation provides greater certainty[7]. Parties can expect that the award will not be dragged out through protracted appeals, enabling faster resolution and better planning.
7. Suitability for long-term, high-value contracts:
Oil and gas projects often involve multi-billion-dollar investments and long durations (exploration, production, decommissioning). The consequence of dispute-resolution delay or uncertainty is magnified in this context (cost overruns, downtime, reputational risk, regulatory changes). Arbitration is seen as a mechanism better able to deliver “prompt, rational and final resolution of those disputes” in the industry setting[8]. Given the potential for disputes to derail operations or investment flows, parties increasingly favour arbitration as a commercially compatible mechanism.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR OIL & GAS ARBITRATION
a. The legal infrastructure supporting arbitration in oil and gas includes:
Institutional rules such as the ICC, LCIA, and ICSID Arbitration Rules.[9]
b. National laws like the English Arbitration Act and the Nigerian Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023.[10]
c. Stabilization clauses and dispute resolution provisions embedded in Production Sharing Contracts (PSCs) and Joint Operating Agreements (JOAs).[11]
Investment treaties also play a role by granting foreign investors access to investor-state arbitration, particularly in disputes arising from alleged expropriation or discriminatory regulatory changes.[12]
NOTABLE CASE LAW
International arbitration jurisprudence in the petroleum sector has been significantly shaped by landmark cases:
a. Texaco Overseas Petroleum v. Libya[13]
In this case, the tribunal upheld contractual stabilization clauses following nationalization, reinforcing investor confidence.
b. BP Exploration v. Libya[14]
This case confirmed that state expropriation violating concession agreements can attract compensation.
c. Chevron v. Ecuador[15]
This case illustrates the complexities that arise when environmental claims intersect with investment arbitration.
These cases collectively affirm arbitration’s role in balancing State sovereignty with investor protection.
EMERGING ISSUES AND CHALLENGES
Despite its strengths, arbitration is not free from criticism. The high cost of proceedings can burden smaller operators. Investor-state arbitration has also been criticized for a lack of transparency where significant public interest is involved.[16]
Furthermore, the global energy transition introduces new uncertainties. Climate-related regulations may trigger disputes regarding stranded assets, carbon pricing, and renewable-energy obligations within existing petroleum contracts.[17] This evolving landscape demands continuous adaptation of arbitral processes.
CONCLUSION
International arbitration has been established as the dispute resolution mechanism best aligned with the economic, political, and operational dynamics of the global oil and gas industry. Neutrality, confidentiality, technical competence, enforceability of awards, and investor protections make it indispensable to petroleum investment. Looking ahead, arbitration will continue to evolve in response to the energy transition and growing public accountability expectations.[18]
[1] Gary B. Born, International Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law International, 2021
[2] James M. Gaitis, John Burritt McArthur, Gary v McGowan & Susan S. Soussan Oil & Gas Arbitration (PDF)(‘’ the oil & gas industry has long been a leader in promoting the resolution…through the use of binding arbitration’’)at p.1. CC Arbitrators +2Colorado Law Scholarly Commons+2
[3] Lucky N. Bisina Evaluating the international Arbitration of oil and gas investment dispute settlement in Nigeria (2004) Africa Journal of International Energy & Environmental Law, Vol 10, p 14 @ pp 15-16
[4] “Advantages to International Arbitration: Enforceability” (FITCH LP blog, 14 Oct 2020) (“an international arbitral award is enforceable virtually worldwide … the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards … requires parties to ‘recognise arbitral awards as binding and enforce them’”). Fitch Law Partners LLP
[5] “Resolving Energy Disputes Through Arbitration” (Aceris Law, 4 Sep 2021)(“advantages of arbitration include… confidentiality’’). Aceris Law
[6] “International Arbitration and Energy Dispute”(EUP Publishing, 2022)(“arbitration is currently central to the fabric of settling international energy didputes”)
[7] Carolyn I. Sancho v Javier Santoma
[8] Gaitis et al., Oil & Gas Arbitration p. 1(‘’binding arbitration almost always provides a pragmatic and efficacious means of resolving commercial disputes that arise in the oil and gas industry’’)
[9] ICC Rules 2021; ICSID Convention 1965.
[10] Arbitration & Mediation Act 2023(Nigeria).
[11] Model Production Sharing Contract Clauses, NNPC, 2020.
[12] United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Investment Policy Framework, 2020.
[13] Texaco Overseas Petroleum Co v. Libya (1977)17 ILM 1.
[14] BP Exploration Co. (Libya) Ltd v Libya (1974) 53 ILR 297.
[15] Chevron Corp & Texaco Petroleum Co. v Ecuador,PCA Case No. 2009-2023
[16] Transparency in Treaty-Based Investor-State Arbitration, UNCITRAL Rules 2013.
[17] Sabine G. et al, “Energy Transition Risks and Arbitration,’’ Journal of World Energy Law, 2023
[18] IBA Task Force Report on Climate Change Dispute, 2024.
Written by Oluwasileola Akinsete for The Trusted Advisors
Email us: info@cms.trustedadvisorslaw.com