- 67 -
Nevertheless, it is important to note that the MCA negotiations
were conducted in English and that an English version of the MCA
was the direct product of those negotiations. Moreover, we think
it appropriate to address specifically the question of the impact
of the Esso and Mobil agreements. Respondent seeks to derive
comfort from the facts that those agreements had been concluded
by the time of the MCA negotiations and that the language of
Article IV(f)(6) of the MCA was derived from, and identical to,
that contained in the Esso agreement. In the Arabic version of
the Esso agreement, it appears the term "minha" was inserted in
the final stages of the translation process. Mefferd, the most
senior Esso representative who was familiar with the Arabic
version, did not notice and was not made aware of the addition of
the term "minha", prior to entering into the agreement. There is
nothing in the record indicating which party inserted the term
"minha" into the agreement, and the purpose for so doing. By way
of contrast, before reaching its final form, Article IV(f)(6) was
considered thoroughly by Amoco Egypt and its impact was the
subject of discussions among the negotiators for Amoco Egypt and
EGPC. In view of the foregoing, we think that, despite the
identity of phrasing of Article IV(f)(6), the Esso and Mobil
agreements do not impact the intent of the parties to the MCA
involved herein.
Based upon our evaluation of the entire record herein,
including the testimony of the witnesses whom we saw and heard
Page: Previous 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011