Upload
dilip-jena
View
59
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Framework agreement (consisting ofprovisions for unitisation and jointdevelopment): Is it a feasible option forexploration and exploitation of oil & gasresources in disputed maritime zone betweenBangladesh & India?
TABLE OF CONTENT
Framework agreement (consisting of provisions for unitisation and joint development): Is it afeasible option for exploration and exploitation of oil & gas resources in disputed maritime zonebetween Bangladesh & India? 1
Abstract 3
1. Introduction 5
2. The dispute and its impact 7
2.1. The dispute 7
2.2. The impact 9
3. Concept of joint development of oil & gas resources 10
3.1. Unitisation 10
3.2. Joint development agreement 11
4. Case studies: international experiences 12
4.1. Framework agreement between UK & Norway 12
4.2. Greater Sunrise field experience (Timor-Leste and Australia) 13
5. Rationale and key elements of proposed India-Bangladesh framework agreement 14
5.1. Rationale for framework agreement 14
5.2. Proposed stages and key elements of India-Bangladesh Framework Agreement 15
5.3. Key elements of proposed India Bangladesh Framework Agreement 16
6. Conclusion 19
7. Bibliography 20
7.1. Primary Sources 20
7.2. Secondary Sources 20
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Maritime Boundaries ..........................................................................................................5
Figure 2: Moore Island and claimed boundaries................................................................................7
Figure 3: Baselines claimed by India and Bangladesh.......................................................................8
Figure 4: Bangladesh and India's overlapping zones .........................................................................9
Abstract
Bangladesh, On October 8, 2009, initiated arbitral proceedings under United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) at The Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague (PCA) for
the delimitation of the maritime boundary between Bangladesh and India. The hearing started on
09 December 2013 and concluded on 19 December 2013. The final verdict of PCA (Judgment)
may take some more time. In light of above development what could both countries do to
develop their off-shore oil & gas resources which lie in the disputed zone in Bay of Bengal?
This paper, considering the dynamic nature of issue, due to pendency of Judgment, seeks to
analyse and present a case for development of oil & gas resources in a phased manner through a
Framework Agreement. The concepts of Unitisation and Joint Development are discussed
followed by the case-studies of international framework agreements for development of oil & gas
resources lying either in disputed zone or across a delimited boundary. Drawing from the case
studies, the paper concludes with key elements of a possible Framework Agreement consisting of
provisions for various stages:
Stage 1 (pre Judgment phase)
Stage 2 (post Judgment transition period)
Stage 3 (post Judgment & post transition period)
Though this paper aims at proposing a possible solution for development of off-shore oil & gas
resources, in light of maritime dispute between Bangladesh and India, the possible outcome may
act as template for starting point for discussion on development of Framework Agreement in
similar cases elsewhere.
Word Count: 2493
Abbreviations
CMATS Certain Maritime Arrangements in the Timor Seas 2006
EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone
HSE Health, Safety & Environment
ICJ International Court of Justice
IUA International Unitisation Agreement 2003 (over Greater Sunrise Field)
JDA Joint Development Agreement
JDZ Joint Development Zone
LCS Legal Continental Shelf
MI Moore Island
PCA Permanent Court of Arbitration
TCF Trillion Cubic Feet
TGT Timor Gap Treaty in 1989
TST Timor Sea Treaty in 2002
UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
bbl Barrels
BCF Billion Cubic Feet
CMATS Certain Maritime Arrangements in the Timor Seas 2006
EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone
HSE Health, Safety & Environment
ICJ International Court of Justice
IUA International Unitisation Agreement 2003 (over Greater Sunrise Field)
JDA Joint Development Agreement
JDZ Joint Development Zone
LCS Legal Continental Shelf
1. Introduction
After series of bilateral negotiations, spanned over 39 years starting 1974, Bangladesh and India
have not been able to arrive at a harmonious solution to their maritime dispute1. Bangladesh, on
October 8, 2009, initiated arbitral proceedings under the United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea 2 (UNCLOS) at The Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague (PCA) for the
delimitation of the maritime boundary between Bangladesh and India. The hearing started on 09
December 2013 and concluded on 18 December 20133.
The mandate of PCA is to determine:
1. Sovereignty over Moore Island (MI)
2. Baseline determination
3. Delimitation of maritime boundaries
including :
a. Territorial Sea,
b. Contiguous Zone,
c. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ),
and
d. Legal Continental Shelf (LCS).
Figure 1 provides general understanding
of maritime boundary.
Figure 1: Maritime Boundaries4
Though this paper aims at proposing a possible solution for development of off-shore oil & gas
resources, in light of maritime dispute between Bangladesh and India, the possible outcome may
1Agarwal, S. K., 2010. India-Bangladesh Maritime Dispute: An International Law Perspective, Maritime Affairs:Journal of the National Maritime Foundation of India, [e-journal] Vol. 6 No. 1, pp 33, Available through: University ofDundee Library < http://www.dundee.ac.uk/library/> (hereinafter “UoD”) [Accessed 16 Dec. 2013]. (hereinafter“Agarwal”)2 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 10 December, 1982, I.L.M (hereinafter “UNCLOS”)3 Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague 2013. Bay of Bengal Maritime Boundary Arbitration between Bangladeshand India. [online] Available at: < http://www.pca-cpa.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=1376> [Accessed 24 December2013]. (hereinafter “Bay of Bengal Arbitration”)4 Datta, S. 2010, Bangladesh's Extended Continental Shelf: Navigating the Course with India and Myanmar, StrategicAnalysis, [e-journal] Vol. 34 No. 5, pp 731, Available through: UoD [Accessed 19 Dec 2013] (hereinafter “Datta”)
act as template for starting point for discussion on development of Framework Agreement in
similar cases elsewhere. The second chapter discusses the impact of dispute on oil & gas
followed by concepts of JDA and unitization in third chapter. Fourth Chapter provides case
studies and fifth chapter presents the key provisions of possible framework agreement. Sixth
chapter concludes the paper.
2. The dispute and its impact
2.1. The dispute
In 1970, MI appeared unexpectedly in Ganges Delta region of Bay of Bengal, due to tectonic
activties, and lies directly at the mouth of Hariabhanga River5 and both Bangladesh and India
claim sovereignity over it constituting a dispute. The ownership of MI provides advantage in
maritime boundary delimitation. Figure 2 presents the competing claims of both countries. It may
be mentioned that the continetal shelf of Bay of Bengal is rich in oil & gas resources as
demonstrated by India’s discovery of 100 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of hydrocarbon deposit
followed by Myanmar’s discovery of another 7 TCF of natural gas resources recently6.
5 Tanaka, K. American University, Washington, 2011. Indo-Bangladesh Maritime Border Dispute: Conflicts over adisappeared island. ICE Case Studies Number 270 [online], Available at: <http://www1.american.edu/ted/ICE/taplatti.html#III> [Accessed 24 December 2013]. (hereinafter “Tanaka”)6 See Datta, Supra note 4. pp 729
Figure 2:
Moore
Island and
claimed
boundaries1
Further, India supports the traditional concept baseline determination based on low-water mark
and is known as “normal baseline” method7. While, Bangladesh, on the other hand, has followed
straight baseline method8 (Figure 3), by connecting points which are at a depth of 10 fathoms
from shore. This is strongly opposed by India, Myanmar and other countries including United
States of America9. This is second point of dispute.
Figure 3: Baselines claimed by India and Bangladesh10
The third point of disagreement between both countries is the principle of delimitation of
maritime boundaries. Bangladesh favours of “equity principle” for delimitation of maritime
boundaries11 over “equitable solution” based on equidistance line.
7 Low water-mark points are usually permanent point recorded in official maps and are usually nearest low water –mark points near shore. In case of permanently exposed land the low-water mark points could be at unlimited distanceif during low tide some potions of elevations, which are within 12 nautical miles, are exposed.8 In case where low-water mark basis is not practical due to dynamic nature of coasts such as delta or deeply indentedprofiles of coast straight baselines may be used as an alternative baseline. In this case baseline anchors geographicallandmarks such as islands and shallow water grounds9 See Tanaka, Supra note 510 Ibid11 See Agarwal, Supra note 1. pp 43-44
2.2. The impact
As per US Energy Information Administration data12, natural gas (NG) demand of Bangladesh is
growing at CAGR13 of 7.32% over last 30 years. And with current production rate its NG
resources would last only 10 more years. Bangladesh is solely dependent on the NG produced in
Bay of Bengal for its NG needs. Also, India’s NG imports have been growing at CAGR 30%
since 2004. To develop NG resources in Bay of Bengal, Bangladesh initiated a bidding round in
2008 but 10 out of 28 blocks were in disputed zone (Figure 4). Both countries agreed to cease
exploration of the blocks in disputed zone and this cessation is continuing while writing this
report.
Figure 4: Bangladesh and India's overlapping zones14
The moratorium has only led to delay in development of oil & gas blocks. Therefore, it is
important to understand the joint development methodologies which could be used in such
situations. Next chapter presents the available methodologies of joint development.
12 U.S. Energy information Administration, 2013. Independent Statistics & Analysis [online], Available at: <http://www.eia.gov/countries/> [Accessed 27 December 2013]. (hereinafter “EIA”)13 Compound annual growth rate14 See Tanaka, Supra note 5
3. Concept of joint development of oil & gasresources
Oil & gas resources are not demarcated by boundaries and could be exploited from either side of
boundary.15 Also, the resolution number 1803 (XVII) of United Nations in 1962 adopted by
General Assembly provides for sovereignty of peoples and nations over their natural wealth and
resources (“Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources”)16. The resolution covers various
aspects of natural resource development including exploration, development and sharing of profits
among others. The physical property of oil & gas resources in light of Permanent Sovereignty over
Natural Resources possesses a great challenge for optimal development of transnational reservoirs.
However, these challenges could suitably be addressed using the concepts of joint development of
oil & gas resources which are discussed below.
3.1. Unitisation
This is a mechanism where a single operator develops a trans-boundary reservoir as single unit
with objective of optimizing the production to improve conservation. Unitisation is effected
through series of agreement between sovereign states and private companies in case of
transnational resources. The important provisions of unitisation agreement consist of following
among others17:
1. Area of unitisation: Geological modeling of the sub-surface reservoir and delineation of
possible geo-graphical co-ordinates, subject to future corrections.
2. Ownership & participating interest:
Percentage ownership of respective states in sub-surface reservoir depending upon the
extent of reservoir lying on their side of international border.
15 Lagoni, R. 1979. Oil and Gas Deposits Across National Frontiers, American Journal of International Law. pp 216.16 United Nations, 2013. Audiovisual library of international Law [online], Available at:<http://legal.un.org/avl/ha/ga_1803/ga_1803.html> [Accessed 28 December 2013].17 Duval, C., Le Leuch, H., Pertuzio, A. and Weaver, J.L. 1986. International Petroleum Exploration and ExplotationAgreements, Legal, Economic &policy Aspects. 2nd ed. New York: Barrows Company Inc.
Participating interests owned by each party in unitised area, usually calculated on the
basis of each party’s share of hydrocarbons in place subject to modification on
expected recovery.
3. Management committee: Constitution & function of management committee for managing
unitisation process and subsequent operations.
4. Exploration, development, operation and cost sharing: Mechanism of sharing of costs,
risks and returns between operator and states.
5. Redetermination: Conditions and frequency of re-calculations of ownership of states and
participating interest of the parties to the unitization agreement.
There is only a small pool of transnational unitisation agreements. Agreement between UK &
Norway for development of Frigg gas field in the North Sea is one such successful agreement. It
may be observed that unitisation agreements are usually effected when the boundaries are
delimited. If the boundaries are not delimited then states may like either to
1. Delimit the boundary and then proceed for unitization agreement; or
2. Enter into Joint Development Agreement (JDA)
3.2. Joint development agreement
Joint development agreements are preferred means to develop oil & gas resources by countries
when more than one state claim sovereignty/sovereign rights over a disputed territory resulting in
overlapping zone. An autonomous, Joint Development Zone (JDZ) is created, through an
agreement between countries for petroleum, exploration & exploitations.
Duval et al (1986: 215)18 state that
“The joint development agreements are pragmatic solution to allow mutually beneficial petroleum
exploration and development while putting aside the conflicting claims of sovereignty over them.”
Timor Sea treaties between Australia and Timor-Leste are one of the recent examples of creating
JDZ. These have been discussed in subsequent sections.
18 Ibid. pp 215
4. Case studies: international experiences
4.1. Framework agreement between UK & Norway
The collaboration between UK and Norway for developing Frigg gas-field is considered to be one
of the most successful unitization process ever followed for developing trans-national gas
reservoir. Almost 40 years of learning from diverse North Sea agreements led to drafting and
signing of the framework agreement in 2005. The important initiatives and arrangement which
worked in favor of both the countries are described in form of milestones below.
1. Milestone 1-Delimitation Agreement between UK/Norway of 1965: This delimitation
agreement provided for definition of “common deposit” and established the importance of
development of common deposit through co-operations 19 . Further, in North Sea
Continental Shelf cases of 1969, International Court of Justice (ICJ) noted that, for
efficient development of the transnational oil & gas resources, it is important for preserve
the unity of the reservoir20.
2. Milestone 2-Frigg Unitization Agreement of 1976: This comprehensive transnational
unitization agreement incorporated all the vital elements of previous North Sea agreements
including clause for defining “common deposit”, highlighted importance of delimitation of
continental shelf for apportioning the in situ reserves and suggested mechanism of
exploitation through single operator for off-shore gas field. Onorato confirmed the
importance of Frigg field agreement as possible model agreement for future unitisation21.
3. Milestone 3-Framework Agreement 2005: The Framework Agreement of Norway-UK
200522 may be treated as one of the most comprehensive framework agreements providing
19 Article 4 of the UK-Norway Agreement of 1965 states: “ If any single geological structure or petroleum field ,orany single geological structure or field of any other mineral deposit, including sand or gravel, extends across thedividing line and the part of such structure or field which is situated on one side of the dividing line is exploitable,wholly or in part, from the other side of the dividing line, the Contracting Parties shall, in consultation with thelicensees, if any, seek to reach agreement as to the manner in which the proceeds deriving therefrom shall beapportioned.”20 North Sea Cases,1969, ICJ Report,97. para. 52-5321 Onorato, W., 1977. Apportionment of an International Common Petroleum Deposit, International and ComparativeLaw Quarterly. pp 32422Framework Agreement, 2005, between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and NorthernIreland and the Government of the Kingdom of Norway concerning Cross-Boundary Petroleum Co-operation, Crowncopyright 2006.
for unitization process, health, safety & environment (HSE) standards, development of pipe
infrastructure, tariffs at entry & exit points, decommissioning provisions and dispute
settlement etc. among others.
4.2. Greater Sunrise field experience (Timor-Leste and Australia)
The Timor Sea JDA is considered as comprehensive and exhaustive JDA of its kind23. It comprises
of following four agreements.
Timor Gap Treaty in 1989 (TGT) rechristened as Joint Petroleum Development Area
(JPDA) by Timor-Leste
Timor Sea Treaty 2002 (TST)
International Unitisation Agreement 2003 over Greater Sunrise Field (IUA)
the Australian-Timor-Leste Treaty on Certain Maritime Arrangements in the Timor Seas
2006 (CMATS)
This JDA has benefitted both Timor-Leste and Australia in securing energy resources for their
development. Timor-Leste receives 90% of all the revenues from the production of JPDA.
Further, the IUA allocates 20.1% of the Greater Sunrise Field to JPDA and 79.9% to Australia.
However, the further negotiations between Timor-Leste and Australia led to signing of CMATS.
CMATS provide for following among others:
Sharing all revenue from Greater Sunrise equally,
Deferring discussion in relation to boundary claims for 50 years.
India and Bangladesh could significantly learn from the experiences of the Frigg gas-field and
Timor Sea experiences for developing their own framework agreement. In next chapter we have
discussed the rationale for framework agreement between India and Bangladesh.
23 Robson, C., Blake, G., Hildesley, W., Pratt, M., Ridley, R. and Schofield, C., 1995. Transboundary PetroleumReservoirs: Legal Issues and Solutions in Peaceful Management of Transboundary Resources, London, UK: Graham& Trotman, pp 28.
5. Rationale and key elements of proposedIndia-Bangladesh framework agreement
5.1. Rationale for framework agreement
1. Avoiding further delay: Exploration activities in disputed zone of Bay of Bengal have
already been in moratorium since 2008 and this has led to delays in development of oil &
gas resources. Early the exploration programmes start better it is for the energy planners of
the country. In case of unsuccessful exploration, energy planners will have ample time to
strategies for other alternatives of securing energy at optimal prices.
2. Need of agreement even after PCA Judgment: Final verdict of PCA in Bay of Bengal
Arbitration may take some more time. Even after the judgment both countries will be
required require to indentify and unitise transnational oil & gas resources for efficient
exploitation.
3. Avoiding multiple agreements: Framework agreement takes away the need for entering into
separate agreements for each block for unitization and/or joint development by the two
countries. Framework agreement would provide for approval process for JDA and/or
unitization plans of operators.
4. Success of other framework agreements: India and Bangladesh may draw from the
successful international experiences in North Sea and Timor Sea to govern the exploitation
of their disputed blocks.
5. Framework agreement to provide for stage wise development: The India-Bangladesh
Framework Agreement would provide for its own amendments to incorporate verdict of
PCA. The key clauses of framework agreement would address the issues related to
following stages:
Stage 1 (pre judgment phase)
Stage 2 (post judgment transition period)
Stage 3 (post judgment & post transition period)
In light of above points, India-Bangladesh Framework Agreement seems to hold potential for
timely exploitation of oil & gas resources.
5.2. Proposed stages and key elementsFramework Agreement
Stage 1: Pre JudgementPhase
•
••
•
Stage 2: Post Judgementtransition phase
••
••
Stage 3: Post Judgementand post transition phase
•••
and key elements of India-BangladeshFramework Agreement
The framework agreement provides for Joint Development inoverlapping zoneDraws from the experience of Timor Sea JDABidding rounds for oil & gas exploration are initiated with aprovision of ammedment of contract terms with PCA verdictEstimated length of this stage: 1-3 years
The judgement of PCA is implementedUnitisation process for any trans-national resources, whichhave been offered at stage 1, beginDraws from the experience of Figg Gas-field experienceEstimated length of this stage: 1-2 years
Unitisation process completeDraws from the experience of Figg Gas-field experienceRevenue is shared in proportion of the resources within theboundary of respecive countries
Bangladesh
The framework agreement provides for Joint Development in
Draws from the experience of Timor Sea JDABidding rounds for oil & gas exploration are initiated with aprovision of ammedment of contract terms with PCA verdict
national resources, which
field experience
field experienceRevenue is shared in proportion of the resources within the
5.3. Key elements of proposed India Bangladesh FrameworkAgreement
5.3.1. Stage 1 (pre judgment stage): possible key elements
Since the maritime boundaries are not delimited in this stage, therefore the India-Bangladesh
Framework Agreement may draw its experiences from the Timor Sea JDA. This stage may
possibly continue from one to three years. This will help in avoidance of further delay in
exploitation. The important provisions of this phase are listed below:
Articles Remarks
Moratorium Both parties may declare moratorium for asserting sovereign rights over the
disputed zone for Stage 1
Joint Development Area Both parties shall mutually identify the area which they want to develop as
JDZ.
It may include all the disputed blocks including DS-08-10, DS-08-11,
DS-08-14, DS-08-19, DS-08-24, SS-08-05, SS-08-09 SS-08-1424 etc.
The JDZ articles may remain in force till onset of stage 2 unless
otherwise mutually extended but not on after the onset of stage 3
Revenue sharing The revenue sharing for this phase may be mutually decided and may be
shared equally as in Timor Sea JDA
Commission for India-
Bangladesh Framework
Agreement
This article provides for appointing of commission for managing and
implementing the legal, technical and commercial aspects Framework
Agreement including effecting the judgment PCA
24 Platts, 2012. Bangladesh to offer 'disputed' offshore gas blocks in August bidding roundIndependent Statistics & Analysis [online], Available at: < http://www.platts.com/latest-news/natural-gas/dhaka/bangladesh-to-offer-disputed-offshore-gas-blocks-7875785> [Accessed 27 December 2013].
5.3.2. Stage 2 (post judgment transition period): possible key elements
This stage may continue from one to two years after Stage 2 based on the time taken for unitisation
process for blocks offered in Stage 1. Apart from the key provisions of Stage 1 the following
provisions may be applicable in this stage
Articles Remarks
Joint Exploitation of
Trans-Boundary
Reservoirs as a Unit in
light of verdict of PCA
This article may provide for unitisation & authorisations, agreement
between the licensees, determination and apportionment of reserves,
determination and expert procedure, unit operator etc.
Onset of stage 2 This article provides for the date of onset of Stage 2.
The date of onset of Stage 2 is linked to date of judgment of PCA.
Provisions for
succession of unit
operator
This article provides for conditions of selections of unit operator and
process of selection of its successors, if necessary.
Revenue sharing The revenue sharing mechanism may
either be in proportion of resources lying across the delimited boundary;
and
If the proportion is not yet known then at the rate decided in Stage 1.
Appointment of
Assessor
This article provides for appointment of assessor for establishing the
correctness of revenue share. Assessor may suggest adjustment in past
revenue sharing.
5.3.3. Stage 3 (post judgment & post transition period): possible key elements
Apart from the key provisions of Stage 1 and Stage 2 the following provisions may be applicable
in this stage
Articles Remarks
Revenue sharing The revenue sharing mechanism may be in proportion of resources
lying across the delimited boundary with provisions of subsequent
corrections due to generated data.
Decommissioning This article provides for decommissioning and financial resources for
decommissioning.
6. Conclusion
This paper has sought to present a possible way to develop transnational oil & gas resources in
Bay of Bengal through India-Bangladesh Framework Agreement. India and Bangladesh may learn
from the experiences of transnational unitization and joint developments specifically in North Sea
agreements and Timor Sea JDA respectively to develop their own oil & gas resources in disputed
blocks. The India-Bangladesh Framework Agreement, incorporating the learning over 40 years for
joint development and/or unitization, will help in avoiding multiple treaties between these two
countries for each transnational reservoir. Further, it will help in timely implementation of verdict
of PCA which in turn will help in developing their oil & gas resources in optimal time which in
turn will help both the countries in meeting their growing energy demands to help their
impoverished population and to meet human development goals.
7. Bibliography
7.1. Primary Sources
7.1.1. Conventions
Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague 2013. Bay of Bengal Maritime Boundary Arbitrationbetween Bangladesh and India. [online] Available at: < http://www.pca-cpa.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=1376> [Accessed 24 December 2013]
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 10 December, 1982, I.L.M
United Nations, 2013. Audiovisual library of international Law [online], Available at:<http://legal.un.org/avl/ha/ga_1803/ga_1803.html> [Accessed 28 December 2013]
7.1.2. International Treaties
Framework Agreement, 2005, between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britainand Northern Ireland and the Government of the Kingdom of Norway concerning Cross-BoundaryPetroleum Co-operation, Crown copyright 2006
7.1.3. Judicial Decisions
North Sea Cases,1969, ICJ Report,97. para. 52-53
7.2. Secondary Sources
7.2.1. Books
Duval, C., Le Leuch, H., Pertuzio, A. and Weaver, J.L. 1986. International Petroleum Explorationand Explotation Agreements, Legal, Economic &policy Aspects. 2nd ed. New York: BarrowsCompany Inc.
Robson, C., Blake, G., Hildesley, W., Pratt, M., Ridley, R. and Schofield, C., 1995.Transboundary Petroleum Reservoirs: Legal Issues and Solutions in Peaceful Management ofTransboundary Resources, London, UK: Graham & Trotman, pp 28
7.2.2. Articles
Agarwal, S. K., 2010. India-Bangladesh Maritime Dispute: An International Law Perspective,Maritime Affairs: Journal of the National Maritime Foundation of India, [e-journal] Vol. 6 No. 1,
pp 33, Available through: University of Dundee Library < http://www.dundee.ac.uk/library/>(hereinafter “UoD”)
Datta, S. 2010, Bangladesh's Extended Continental Shelf: Navigating the Course with India andMyanmar, Strategic Analysis, [e-journal] Vol. 34 No. 5, pp 731, Available through: UoD[Accessed 19 Dec 2013]
Lagoni, R. 1979. Oil and Gas Deposits Across National Frontiers, American Journal ofInternational Law. pp 216
Onorato, W., 1977. Apportionment of an International Common Petroleum Deposit, Internationaland Comparative Law Quarterly. pp 324
Tanaka, K. American University, Washington, 2011. Indo-Bangladesh Maritime Border Dispute:Conflicts over a disappeared island. ICE Case Studies Number 270 [online], Available at: <http://www1.american.edu/ted/ICE/taplatti.html#III> [Accessed 24 December 2013]
7.2.3. Online Knowledge Repositories
U.S. Energy information Administration, 2013. Independent Statistics & Analysis [online],Available at: < http://www.eia.gov/countries/> [Accessed 27 December 2013]
Platts, 2012. Bangladesh to offer 'disputed' offshore gas blocks in August bidding roundIndependent Statistics & Analysis [online], Available at: < http://www.platts.com/latest-news/natural-gas/dhaka/bangladesh-to-offer-disputed-offshore-gas-blocks-7875785> [Accessed 27December 2013]