Most obviously, there has been a disconnect from the “oil-centric” nature of energy investments, which was evident in the pioneering trade-offs of the 1980s. Investments in energy have had to take into account large-scale investments in other forms of energy such as wind and solar energy. This trend continues to this day with robustness. Whether the postponement has had a significant impact on the development of legal education is not yet clear and awaits further legal developments. As an indicator of change, it can also miss the point. During this period, energy investment models have also been changed by the arrival of a considerable number of new players, both as investors and as states, resulting in greater diversity among the major players. GEM, although unsuccessful, attempted to obtain such an agreement in 2001, a few years after the applicants` initial investment, and in 2002 Vostokneftegaz, a company controlled by the applicants, concluded a stability agreement on a number of taxes. In the absence of such a stability agreement in favour of GEM, the applicants failed to establish that they had reason to hope that they would not be subject to substantial tax increases in the future. Thus, in certain circumstances, States will offer generous conditions to potential investors: whether they need to attract foreign investment where there is none; “First Mover” in the hope of discovering oil; when their neighbours offer stabilization; and in times of falling oil prices to overcome the reluctance of foreign investors to invest scarce capital.
Posted in Uncategorized.