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]