Energy Arbitration in Bangladesh 2026: Power, Gas and LNG Disputes, Price Reviews and Enforcement

Energy arbitration Bangladesh: the 2026 landscape

Energy arbitration Bangladesh practitioners deal with is no longer a quiet corner of commercial law. Between August 2024 and October 2026 the country repealed the special law under which most of its private power was procured, put its legacy contracts before a national review committee, watched the High Court Division stay a Singapore arbitration brought by Adani Power, and then sent its Attorney General to that same Singapore forum. At the same time, war-driven force majeure in the Gulf cut long-term LNG deliveries and pushed oil-indexed gas prices to levels that make price review clauses worth reading line by line.

This guide is written for sponsors, lenders, LNG sellers, upstream contractors, the Bangladesh Power Development Board (BPDB), Petrobangla and their advisers. It covers the three dispute families that matter: independent power producer (IPP) disputes under power purchase agreements, upstream disputes under production sharing contracts with Petrobangla, and LNG disputes under sale and purchase agreements and terminal contracts, including LNG price review arbitration. It explains the clauses that decide outcomes, the 2024 to 2026 contract review, the current status of the Adani case, and how an award is turned into money. Regulatory and licensing questions are covered in our separate guide to energy law in Bangladesh.

Summary: Energy disputes in Bangladesh arise mainly under power purchase agreements with BPDB, production sharing contracts with Petrobangla and LNG supply and terminal contracts. Most major contracts send disputes to arbitration seated abroad, but the 2024 to 2026 review of legacy power deals, domestic court intervention in the Adani case and the 2026 LNG force majeure have made clause drafting, procedural discipline and enforcement planning decisive.

Key point: The repeal of the Quick Enhancement of Electricity and Energy Supply (Special Provisions) Act 2010 preserved contracts signed under it but reserved the government's right to review them. In 2026 an investor's arbitration clause is argued against that review power, a public findings report and the possibility of a writ petition at home.

At a glance

Swipe or scroll →

Table of Contents

Why the energy sector produces Bangladesh's largest arbitrations

Energy contracts in Bangladesh share three features that generate disputes. The counterparty is almost always a state entity, so commercial claims carry political weight. The contracts are long, typically twenty to twenty-five years for power and longer for upstream gas, so they outlive the governments that signed them. And the money flows in foreign currency against a domestic tariff that does not recover cost, which leaves the state offtaker exposed every time fuel prices or the exchange rate move.

The national review committee quantified that exposure. It found that payments to independent power producers rose elevenfold between FY2011 and FY2024 while generation rose only fourfold, that system utilisation ran at 40 to 50 per cent, and that idle capacity cost between US$900 million and US$1.5 billion a year.[3] Those numbers are the economic background to almost every energy arbitration Bangladesh counterparties now face: the state wants to pay less, the investor wants the contract honoured, and the arbitration clause decides who adjudicates that conflict.

Who sits across the table

On the power side the offtaker is BPDB, usually backed under older projects by an implementation agreement with the government. On the gas side the counterparties are Petrobangla and its subsidiaries, including the exploration company BAPEX. LNG is bought by Petrobangla under long-term sale and purchase agreements and spot tenders. The ministry that owns all three is the Ministry of Power, Energy and Mineral Resources, which is also the ministry that ran the contract review.

Commercial, investment and regulatory tracks

An energy dispute can run on three tracks at once. The contract track is commercial arbitration under the PPA, PSC or SPA. The treaty track is investment arbitration where the investor's home state has a bilateral investment treaty with Bangladesh, which our guide to ICSID investment arbitration in Bangladesh covers in depth. The domestic track is the regulator and the courts, including writ petitions in the High Court Division. Strategy fails when a party plans for only one of them.

IPP and power purchase agreement disputes

Private generation has followed a build-own-operate model with BPDB as single buyer under a long-term power purchase agreement, traditionally paired with an implementation agreement in which the government gave support and, in many cases, backstopped BPDB's obligations.[8] The disputes that reach arbitration cluster around four issues.

Payment arrears and late-payment interest

BPDB's payment cycle has been delayed by periods ranging from a few months to more than a year at different times.[8] A producer that is not paid still has to service project debt and buy fuel, so arrears quickly become a contractual claim for principal, late-payment interest and, in some cases, the right to suspend supply. The Adani dispute began as exactly that kind of claim. Late-payment clauses that looked reasonable at signing become the most contested numbers in the case once arrears accumulate, because the state will argue that the rate is penal.

Liquidated damages and availability deductions

The second fault line is set-off. BPDB has reduced payments by deducting liquidated damages for alleged failure to meet availability obligations, and some producers have obtained interim High Court orders restraining further deductions, leaving the treatment of amounts already deducted unresolved.[8] An IPP facing deductions should dispute each one in writing under the contract's billing dispute procedure, because a deduction accepted without protest is far harder to recover in arbitration.

Tariff reopening outside the contract

After 2024 operating projects came under pressure to revisit tariffs outside the ordinary adjustment mechanisms in their project documents.[8] A tariff can lawfully change only under the contract's own terms or by agreement. Any producer asked to accept a lower tariff should treat the request as a variation proposal, document it as such, and reserve its rights expressly, so that a later claim is not met with an argument of waiver or estoppel.

Termination and cancelled awards

Termination disputes turn on the compensation formula. For projects that never reached a signed PPA the position is different again: the High Court Division has held that one cancellation of a letter of intent by BPDB was illegal for procedural irregularity, but it remains unclear whether cancelled letters of intent receive any protection under the saving clause in the repeal legislation.[8] Holders of unsigned awards are usually in writ territory rather than arbitration, because without a signed contract there is often no arbitration agreement to invoke. The renewable side of this story is covered in our guide to renewable energy law in Bangladesh.

PPA clauses that decide energy arbitration Bangladesh outcomes

Most energy arbitration Bangladesh cases are won or lost on drafting done years before the dispute. Six clauses deserve the most attention.

Seat, rules and institution

International-standard PPAs such as Bibiyana II have used a foreign seat, Geneva or Singapore, with ICC or UNCITRAL rules, and some PPAs provide a pathway to ICSID. By contrast, some renewable PPAs specify domestic arbitration under the Arbitration Act 2001 seated in Dhaka.[9] The seat matters more than any other choice, because it fixes which courts supervise the arbitration and which courts can set the award aside. Under section 3 of the Arbitration Act 2001, the Act applies where the place of arbitration is in Bangladesh, and only sections 45 to 47, the foreign award provisions, apply when the seat is abroad.[1]

Tiered dispute resolution

Energy contracts usually require negotiation between senior executives, then mediation or expert determination, before arbitration. In the Adani case the institutional mediation stage was described as a mandatory but non-binding step before full arbitration.[5] Each tier should have a fixed time limit and a clear statement that a party may start arbitration once it expires. Open-ended tiers give the state party a ready argument that the claim is premature.

Governing law and the BERC Act

The Bangladesh Energy Regulatory Commission Act 2003 gives the regulator arbitral authority over certain disputes, but treaty arbitration overrides it, and the Supreme Court has held that specific contractual arbitration clauses supersede the Commission's mandate.[9] Even so, a PPA should say expressly which disputes go to arbitration and which, such as licensing questions, stay with the regulator. Our energy law guide sets out section 40 of the BERC Act in detail.

Sovereign immunity waiver

Bangladesh follows the restrictive theory of immunity, and consenting to arbitration waives immunity from jurisdiction. PPAs and implementation agreements typically include broad waivers covering jurisdiction, attachment and execution, though some older PPAs carve out protected assets needed to keep the grid running.[9] The waiver must extend to execution against assets, not only to the arbitration itself.

Change in law and payment security

Tender documents for new projects have been criticised for limited payment security, no clear government backstop, restrictions on assigning the contract for financing, broad termination rights and limited termination compensation.[8] The 2026 PPP guidelines reintroduce the implementation agreement in substance as a facilitation agreement.[8] Where no government support document exists, the power purchase agreement itself must carry change in law protection, a termination payment formula and a payment security mechanism, or a future award may be against a counterparty that cannot pay.

Fuel price pass-through

For thermal plants, the fuel index is the clause most likely to be litigated. The Adani case shows why: a disagreement over which coal index and which calorific value apply can move the tariff by millions of dollars a year.[7] Index, calorific basis, data source and fallback must be stated without ambiguity. Our guide to EPC contracts in Bangladesh covers the construction contract that sits underneath the PPA.

The 2024 to 2026 power-contract review and the end of the special law

For fourteen years the Quick Enhancement of Electricity and Energy Supply (Special Provisions) Act 2010 allowed power and energy projects to be awarded through a fast-track process outside ordinary procurement. Its unravelling is now the backdrop to every legacy power dispute.

The High Court ruling of November 2024

On 14 November 2024 the High Court Division declared section 9 of the 2010 Act unconstitutional. That section barred any court from questioning anything done or deemed done under the Act. The court also struck down section 6(2), which had given the energy minister sole authority to approve procurement and investment plans, subject to cabinet committee approval. To avoid legal complexity, it condoned actions already taken in good faith under the two sections. The writ petition had been filed on 28 August 2024 by Supreme Court lawyers Shahdeen Malik and Md Tayeb-Ul-Islam Showrov.[2]

Repeal with a savings clause

At the end of November 2024 the interim government repealed the 2010 Act by ordinance. The repeal provides that contracts signed under the Act, and actions taken under them, are counted as legal, while the government keeps the right to review all activities done under the Act and to act in the public interest.[2] The formula is double-edged for investors: it confirms validity, which supports an arbitration claim, but it gives the state a statutory hook to reopen terms, which supports a defence. Our energy law guide follows the statutory position after Parliament reconvened in 2026.

The national review committee

The five-member National Review Committee was formed on 5 September 2024, led by retired High Court Division judge Moinul Islam Chowdhury, to review contracts signed under the 2010 Act. It submitted its final report to the ministry on 20 January 2026.[3] On Adani it found evidence of irregularities sufficient to justify cancellation, recommended proceedings at the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, and left the decision to the next government, warning that delay could weaken Bangladesh's position in international proceedings.[3]

What the review means in arbitration

A public findings report is evidence, not a judgment. A tribunal will look at whether allegations of corruption or irregularity are proved to the required standard and whether they go to the formation of the contract. An investor should expect the report to be deployed as the foundation of an illegality defence and a counterclaim.

The state, in turn, should remember the warning in Saipem v Bangladesh: an ICSID tribunal held that domestic court intervention against an ICC arbitration seated in Dhaka, ending in a ruling that the award was a nullity, was an unlawful indirect expropriation of the investor's contractual rights.[9] Reviewing contracts is lawful; using domestic courts to block a contractual arbitration carries treaty risk. The wider transition context is in our guide to energy transition in Bangladesh.

The Adani dispute: from payment claim to Singapore arbitration

The Adani case is the most important energy arbitration Bangladesh has seen since Saipem, because it combines a foreign-seated arbitration clause, a corruption allegation backed by a state committee and a domestic court order restraining the process.

The contract and the claim

The 25-year power purchase agreement ties BPDB to Adani's 1,600 MW coal-fired plant in Godda, Jharkhand, India.[4] The review committee reported that the price rose from 8.61 US cents per unit at signing to 14.87 cents in 2025, adding an estimated US$400 to 500 million a year.[3] In an October 2025 letter Adani put the outstanding total at US$496 million, of which it said US$262 million was undisputed, and it threatened to suspend supply from 11 November.[4]

The High Court stay of November 2025

On 2 November 2025 BPDB asked the Singapore International Arbitration Centre to suspend an expert appointment process, citing the investigation and corruption cases. On 19 November a High Court Division bench of Justices Md Bazlur Rahman and Urmi Rahman stayed the Singapore arbitration until the court-formed committee submitted its report, on an application by Barrister M Abdul Qayyum seeking review or cancellation of the power purchase agreement.[4] A Bangladeshi court order binds parties within its reach, but it does not bind a foreign-seated tribunal, which is why such orders are better understood as leverage than as a jurisdictional bar.

Counsel, mediation and the elected government

By the end of January 2026 BPDB had appointed London counsel, King's Counsel Farhaz Khan of 3 Verulam Buildings, with two local experts. Adani had started the SIAC process in 2025, was claiming about US$485 million and the case was in mediation.[5] On 2 April 2026 the Power, Energy and Mineral Resources Minister, Iqbal Hasan Mahmud, told Parliament that the government was weighing two options: taking the disputed issues to an international arbitral tribunal, or negotiating directly with Adani Power to amend the terms and reduce the price.[6]

The August 2026 hearing and the issues

The Financial Express reported on 29 July 2026 that hearings would begin at SIAC in the first week of August, with Attorney General Md Ruhul Quddus Kazal travelling with BPDB officials.[7] The reported issues are technical: the board relies on the Indonesian Coal Index while Adani uses a blended index including Australian Newcastle prices; it says Adani bills at a calorific value of GAR 6,322 kcal while burning lower-grade coal; and it challenges a 2 per cent monthly late-payment surcharge and the failure to pass on Indian tax exemptions.[7] No outcome had been publicly reported when this guide was updated.

Lessons for other power contracts

Three lessons travel. First, a state offtaker's strongest arguments are often contractual, about indices and surcharges, rather than the corruption narrative. Second, an investor should expect domestic litigation in parallel and preserve evidence that it complied with the dispute clause. Third, delay helps neither side: the committee itself warned that hesitation could weaken Bangladesh's position.[3] Our guide to SIAC arbitration for Bangladeshi parties explains the procedure.

Upstream disputes under Petrobangla production sharing contracts

Upstream oil and gas is governed by production sharing contracts between Petrobangla and international operators. The PSC sets the cost recovery limit, the profit gas split and the price at which Petrobangla buys the contractor's share, and the 2026 offshore bidding round, discussed in our energy law guide, links that price to international oil. Upstream energy arbitration Bangladesh cases tend to concern cost recovery audits, gas price calculation, work programme defaults and relinquishment, and operational incidents.

The Niko arbitrations

The Niko cases, ICSID Case Nos ARB/10/11 and ARB/10/18, were contract-based claims against BAPEX and Petrobangla concerning gas field blowouts and unpaid gas invoices, with complex jurisdictional debates; an annulment application was rejected in 2023.[9] In January 2026 Petrobangla disclosed that the tribunal had ordered Niko to pay about US$42 million over the 2005 Tengratila blowouts, against a Bangladeshi claim of nearly US$1 billion, and that the full ruling was to be reviewed by the Attorney General's Office before next steps.[5] The gap between claim and award is the lesson: quantum in an upstream case is proved by petroleum engineering evidence, not by the scale of public loss.

Saipem and contractor claims

Saipem began as a contract dispute with Petrobangla under an ICC clause with a Dhaka seat, and became an ICSID expropriation case after the courts revoked the tribunal's authority.[9] Contractors building pipelines, processing plants and terminals for Petrobangla companies should read our guide to construction arbitration in Bangladesh, which covers delay, defects and dispute board claims.

Drafting points for PSC disputes

An upstream investor should insist on a foreign seat, an expert determination route for accounting and measurement disputes, a clear rule on whether expert decisions are final, and a stabilisation or economic balancing clause tied to the fiscal terms. Petrobangla, for its part, should keep complete audit and incident records, because in Niko liability and quantum both turned on technical evidence assembled years after the events.

LNG SPA and terminal disputes

Imported LNG balances domestic gas production in Bangladesh, and that reliance gives energy arbitration Bangladesh lawyers three categories of dispute: price, volume and infrastructure.

The LNG contract book

Bangladesh has bought from Qatargas at 12.65 per cent of the three-month average Brent price plus a constant, and from OQ Trading at 11.90 per cent plus a constant. In June 2023 it signed new long-term SPAs with QatarEnergy for up to 1.8 million tonnes a year over 15 years from January 2026, and with OQ Trading for up to 1.5 million tonnes a year over 10 years from 2026, with slopes reported above 13 per cent of Brent.[11] Every one of those formulas is oil-indexed, which matters when prices are reopened.

Terminal contracts: the Summit FSRU termination

Summit LNG Terminal II signed a terminal use agreement with Petrobangla and an implementation agreement with the government on 30 March 2024 for a third floating storage and regasification unit. Petrobangla announced termination on 7 October 2024 and issued a termination notice on 14 January 2025, on the ground that the performance bond came from the local parent rather than the project company, did not follow the agreed template and arrived late.[10]

Summit responded that Petrobangla had not objected within the 30-day window the agreement allows, that the deadline fell on a non-banking day, and that it had spent about US$20 million; no arbitration had been reported.[10] Conditions precedent, and the procedure for invoking their failure, are where terminal disputes are decided.

Force majeure in 2026

QatarEnergy declared force majeure on 4 March 2026 and was reported in September to have extended it to November 2026, citing security in the Strait of Hormuz. Petrobangla said it had not received formal notice, expected roughly half of the 56 cargoes due under its two long-term Qatari agreements in FY2026–27, and paid more than US$24 per MMBtu for recent spot cargoes.[12] A buyer in that position should test the notice requirements, the duration and mitigation obligations in the force majeure clause, and whether the seller is reallocating available volumes fairly among buyers.

LNG price review arbitration

A price review clause allows a party to reopen the contract price in agreed circumstances, and to ask a tribunal to set it if negotiation fails. It is the most important LNG dispute mechanism for Bangladesh in 2026, because oil-indexed prices diverge sharply from gas market value in a crisis.

How price review clauses work

Periodic reviews, at fixed intervals of often three to five years, are the predominant mechanism in long-term SPAs serving Asian markets; trigger-based reviews, more common in European contracts, require a substantial change in market circumstances not reasonably foreseeable at signing that causes a significant divergence between contract price and market value.[13] Asian reviews have recently fallen every four to five years, and a buyer can limit the window to invoke a review, cap the negotiation period and give arbitrators express authority to change prices.[14]

Precedents that shape the field

Petronet's 2016 renegotiation with RasGas cut its LNG price sharply in exchange for higher long-term volumes, and KOGAS's 2018 arbitration against the North West Shelf joint venture was described as the first public price review arbitration in an Asian LNG contract.[14] European pipeline gas cases such as Naftogaz v Gazprom, Uniper v Gazprom Export and RWE v Gazprom Export show the evidential burden of proving an enduring shift in market conditions.[13]

The 2026 shock and the threshold

With the Strait of Hormuz reportedly effectively closed from early March 2026, Brent passed US$110 a barrel for the first time in four years.[13] The threshold for a trigger-based review is high: the change must be significant and sustained, not ordinary volatility, and a claimant faces the argument that a war shock is temporary once the conflict ends.[13] For Petrobangla, the practical route is often a periodic window. Missing a notice deadline or failing to follow the prescribed procedure may preclude reliance on the clause altogether.[13]

Running a review for a Bangladeshi buyer

A buyer should calendar every review window from signing, assemble evidence of comparable contract prices and market value continuously rather than at the moment of dispute, and decide early whether the target is a new slope, a new constant, a cap or a different index. Comparables will be contested, because suspended and force-majeure-affected contracts shrink the pool.[13] A review claim is also a negotiation lever: a credible arbitration case is often what produces a settlement on volumes and price together, as in Petronet.[14]

Institutions in energy disputes

An energy dispute in Bangladesh involves more bodies than a typical commercial case. The cards below show who does what.

Enforcement: turning an energy award into payment

In energy arbitration Bangladesh practice, an award against a state utility is only as good as the route to collect it. Enforcement planning should begin when the contract is signed, not when the award is issued.

Foreign-seated awards

Under section 45 of the Arbitration Act 2001 a foreign award is binding and is enforced by execution under the Code of Civil Procedure as if it were a decree, on application to the District Judge's court in Dhaka, supported by the authenticated award, the arbitration agreement and evidence that the award is foreign.[1] Section 46 permits refusal only on closed grounds: incapacity, invalidity of the agreement, lack of notice or inability to present one's case, excess of jurisdiction, irregular composition or procedure, an award not yet binding or set aside at the seat, non-arbitrability and conflict with public policy.[1] Our guide to foreign arbitral award enforcement in Bangladesh covers procedure and timing.

Security and adjournment

If the award debtor has applied to set the award aside at the seat, the Dhaka court may adjourn enforcement and, on the creditor's application, order the debtor to give suitable security.[1] Creditors should ask for security at the first hearing. For awards seated in Bangladesh, the challenge regime is set out in our guide to setting aside an arbitral award in Bangladesh.

ICSID awards and assets

ICSID awards are enforced as a final domestic decree under Article 54 of the ICSID Convention, and non-compliance by Bangladesh is a breach of its treaty obligations.[9] Enforcement strategies may target accounts held abroad by Bangladeshi banks, though the commercial purpose of the assets must be identified.[9] Mapping the state party's foreign receivables, trade accounts and commercial assets before filing saves months.

Parallel court proceedings

Section 10 of the Act requires a Bangladeshi court to refer the parties to arbitration and stay a suit brought in breach of an arbitration agreement, if a party applies before filing its written statement.[1] Writ petitions are different: the Adani stay was granted on a writ by a third-party lawyer.[4] Investors should monitor the cause lists, appear and argue jurisdiction promptly, and record the steps for the tribunal. Our guide to writ petitions in Bangladesh explains how such petitions run.

Step-by-step: managing an energy dispute

The sequence below applies whether the claimant is an IPP, an upstream contractor, an LNG seller or the state party itself.

Swipe or scroll →

Comparing the main energy dispute types

The table compares the dispute families. On a phone, scroll it sideways.

Critical mistakes in energy arbitration Bangladesh disputes

Treating the review report as the end of the case

A committee finding does not void a contract. The state still has to prove illegality before the tribunal, and the investor still has to rebut it with documents. Parties on both sides who treat the report as conclusive under-prepare.

Accepting deductions or tariff cuts without reservation

Silence after an availability deduction, or informal acceptance of a lower tariff, is the commonest way an IPP weakens its own claim. Every deduction and every proposed variation should be disputed in writing under the contract.[8]

Ignoring the tier clause

Starting arbitration before negotiation, mediation or expert stages expire hands the respondent a prematurity objection. The Adani case moved through a mediation stage before arbitration.[5]

Missing a price review window

For LNG buyers, a missed notice deadline can extinguish the right to review for years.[13] Review windows belong in the same diary as limitation dates.

Choosing a Dhaka seat without thinking about the courts

A domestic seat brings the Arbitration Act 2001 into full play, including section 7A interim relief and a setting-aside jurisdiction in Bangladeshi courts.[1] Some renewable PPAs choose it; investors should do so only with clear eyes about the Saipem history.[9]

Leaving enforcement until the award

Without an execution waiver and an asset map, an award against a state utility can sit unpaid for years. Draft and diligence for enforcement from day one.

Energy arbitration Bangladesh: what to watch in 2026 and 2027

Four developments will shape energy arbitration Bangladesh parties face over the next year. First, the outcome of the Adani proceedings at SIAC, and whether the elected government pairs arbitration with a negotiated tariff reset, as the minister's two options suggest.[6] [7] Second, whether other legacy IPPs face formal tariff renegotiation demands on the strength of the committee's portfolio findings.[3]

Third, whether Petrobangla uses its review rights under oil-indexed LNG contracts while QatarEnergy's force majeure continues and Brent stays high.[12] [13] Fourth, how the facilitation agreement under the 2026 PPP guidelines restores the government support that lenders lost when implementation agreements were dropped from new tenders.[8] TRW's international arbitration practice and construction claims and project disputes practice act on each of these fronts.

Frequently asked questions

What is energy arbitration in Bangladesh?

It is arbitration of disputes under power purchase agreements, production sharing contracts, LNG supply and terminal contracts and related construction and fuel contracts, usually with BPDB, Petrobangla or the government as one party. Many major contracts use a foreign seat, with ICC, UNCITRAL or institutional rules such as SIAC's.[9]

Did the repeal of the special power law cancel existing contracts?

No. The repeal in November 2024 provides that contracts signed under the 2010 Act, and actions taken under them, are counted as legal, but the government kept the right to review those activities and act in the public interest.[2]

What did the national review committee recommend on Adani?

Its final report of 20 January 2026 found evidence of irregularities sufficient to justify cancellation and recommended taking the matter to the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, leaving the decision to the next government.[3]

Can a Bangladeshi court stop a Singapore arbitration?

A Bangladeshi court can make orders binding parties before it, as the High Court Division did in November 2025 when it stayed Adani's Singapore arbitration pending the committee report. It cannot bind a foreign-seated tribunal, and the Arbitration Act applies only sections 45 to 47 to foreign-seated arbitrations.[1] [4]

What is the current status of the Adani arbitration?

BPDB appointed London counsel in January 2026, the minister told Parliament in April that arbitration and renegotiation were both under consideration, and hearings at SIAC were reported to begin in early August 2026. No outcome had been publicly reported when this guide was updated.[5] [6] [7]

What is an LNG price review arbitration?

It is an arbitration in which a tribunal is asked to revise the contract price under a price review clause after negotiation fails. Reviews are either periodic, at fixed intervals, or triggered by a substantial and unforeseen change in market circumstances.[13] [14]

How are Bangladesh's LNG contracts priced?

Long-term contracts are indexed to Brent. Existing Qatargas and OQ Trading contracts use slopes of 12.65 and 11.90 per cent of three-month average Brent plus a constant, and the 2023 SPAs were reported above 13 per cent.[11]

How is a foreign energy award enforced against a Bangladeshi state entity?

By application to the District Judge's court in Dhaka under section 45 of the Arbitration Act 2001, which enforces the award as a decree, subject only to the refusal grounds in section 46.[1]

Does BERC have jurisdiction over power contract disputes?

The BERC Act 2003 gives the Commission arbitral authority over certain disputes, but the Supreme Court has held that specific contractual arbitration clauses supersede that mandate, and treaty arbitration overrides it.[9]

What happened in the Niko arbitration?

In ICSID proceedings over the 2005 Tengratila blowouts, the tribunal ordered Niko to pay about US$42 million, as Petrobangla disclosed in January 2026, against a Bangladeshi claim of nearly US$1 billion.[5]