In Niko Resources v. Bapex, an ICSID tribunal issued a final award in a long-running commercial dispute arising from a 2003 Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) for the development of gas fields in Bangladesh. The case, initiated by Niko Resources (Bangladesh) Ltd., sought a declaration of non-liability for two major gas well blowouts that occurred at the Chattak field in 2005. The arbitration was conducted in parallel with a related case concerning payment for gas deliveries (ARB/10/18). The Tribunal, having previously dismissed the Government of Bangladesh from the case on jurisdictional grounds, confirmed its jurisdiction over the state-owned respondent, Bapex. The proceedings were marked by significant procedural complexity, including an initial period where Bapex did not substantively engage, prompting the Tribunal to appoint its own experts. A major phase of the arbitration involved a broad corruption claim brought by the Respondents, alleging the JVA was procured by bribery. In a 2019 decision, the Tribunal dismissed these allegations, allowing the main case on liability to resume. In its 2020 Decision on Liability, the Tribunal found that Niko had breached its contractual obligation to act as a “prudent operator” under the JVA. It concluded that the first blowout was caused by Niko’s excessively risky well design and failure to properly prepare the drilling crew. However, it found Niko was not responsible for the second blowout, which occurred at a relief well. The final Award quantifies the damages owed by Niko. The Tribunal awarded Bapex approximately USD 21.4 million, comprising compensation for Bapex's and the Government's share of lost gas and a novel award for the costs of carbon sequestration to remedy the atmospheric pollution caused by the blowout's greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, the Tribunal awarded approximately BDT 50 million (Bangladeshi Taka) for losses to education and for the stress and disruption suffered by the local population. The award also included a complex allocation of the substantial legal and arbitration costs accumulated over the decade-long dispute, with each party bearing a significant portion based on their relative success on different issues.