Procedural Posture and Core Arguments

This document is the Post-Hearing Brief on Quantum submitted by the Respondent, the Plurinational State of Bolivia, following the hearing on quantum held from 28 March to 1 April 2021. The brief is presented without prejudice to Bolivia's jurisdictional objections and merits defenses. Bolivia's central contention is that the Claimant's (Glencore's) valuation of the expropriated assets—the Colquiri Mine, the Vinto Smelter, the Antimony Smelter, and a tin stock—is speculative, grossly inflated, and reliant on unrealistic projections that contradict the assets' historical performance, documented operational limitations, and established industry valuation standards.

Valuation of the Colquiri Mine

Bolivia argues that the Fair Market Value (FMV) of the Colquiri Mine lease must be assessed ex ante as of 19 June 2012. It contends that the Claimant's valuation is fundamentally flawed as it is premised on a hypothetical, misinformed buyer who would accept an unapproved and aspirational 'Triennial Plan' at face value. In contrast, Bolivia asserts that a prudent, well-informed buyer would have based its valuation on the mine's historical performance, known mineral reserves and resources, and operational bottlenecks. Bolivia's position is that Claimant's expert, RPA, improperly fails to apply industry-standard discounts for geological uncertainty and mining recovery. Furthermore, Bolivia challenges the Claimant's projections for production rates, head grades, and metallurgical recovery as technically unfeasible and unsupported, and argues that the Claimant severely underestimates the required capital (CAPEX) and operating (OPEX) expenditures.

Valuation of the Vinto and Antimony Smelters

Regarding the Vinto Smelter, Bolivia challenges the Claimant's projected 22% increase in production as unsubstantiated and impossible given the facility's condition and the absence of any planned or executed capital investment. Bolivia maintains that the valuation should be based on the smelter's actual performance during 2005-2006, not on speculative future output. It also refutes the Claimant's claims of achieving economies of scale and argues that the Claimant's model significantly understates remediation and closure costs.

For the non-operating Antimony Smelter, Bolivia argues its commercial value is nil or negative due to the substantial, unaccounted-for costs of dismantling and remediation. It asserts the valuation date should be 30 April 2010, immediately before its reversion to the State. Bolivia critiques the Claimant's valuation as methodologically flawed for ignoring these liabilities.

Discount Rate, Interest, and Taxes

Bolivia further argues that the discount rates used by the Claimant's experts are unrealistically low, as they fail to adequately account for country-specific business risks and the illiquidity of the assets. On the issue of pre-award interest, Bolivia contends that any such award must be compensatory, not punitive. It therefore advocates for a risk-free rate and the application of simple, not compounded, interest, arguing that the Claimant bore no post-reversion business risk. Finally, Bolivia asserts that any compensation awarded should not be exempt from taxation, as taxation is an essential attribute of sovereignty and the Claimant's request for such an exemption is speculative and premature.