Skip to main content

Oil Prices in Investment Arbitration, Partial Assimilation

Abstract

The chapter refers to the issue of oil prices in the context of international investment arbitrations whose jurisdiction is based on bilateral investment treaties (BITs) or the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). It first analyzes State and industry practice and as well as the legal conclusions of investment tribunals in relation to increases in government take in step with oil price hikes. Second, it looks at with the inputs used by international investment tribunals in their calculation of damages. It finds an apparent disconnect between those legal conclusions and the inputs used by the same tribunals.

Keywords

  • Oil prices
  • Investment arbitration
  • Bilateral investment treaties
  • Energy charter treaty
  • Oil and gas disputes
  • Calculation of damages
  • Government take
  • State practice

This chapter relies in part on research carried out in the context of the author’s D.Phil. thesis. Veronica Lavista is Counsel at the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). This article was written prior to Ms. Lavista joining ICSID. The views expressed in the article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ICSID.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-29089-4_6
  • Chapter length: 22 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-29089-4
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   149.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   149.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)

Notes

  1. 1.

    This was one of the several 1970s cases that related to nationalization of oil and gas concessions. It is particularly relevant here as the measures in question related to increases in government take where oil prices underwent extraordinary hikes. The facts of the case were that the parties to the Concession Agreement—Kuwait and Aminoil—renegotiated its terms on several occasions, on each of which the royalty rate and tax level were increased. In 1975, however, Kuwait requested the application of the “Abu Dhabi Formula” to the Concession and this led to a new round of negotiations. The aim of the government of Kuwait in these negotiations was, among other things “to recoup what it termed ‘windfall profits’, i.e. profits which were attributable to the ‘explosion’ of oil prices rather than to the concessionaire’s efforts”. No agreement was reached between the parties and the dispute was resolved through international arbitration (Cameron 2010).

  2. 2.

    Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Uganda), (2005) ICJ Rep 168, 251–252.

  3. 3.

    Government of Kuwait v American Independent Oil Company (Aminoil), Award (24 March 1982), (1984) 66 International Law Reports, 518.

  4. 4.

    Ley de Contribución Especial sobre Precios Extraordinarios de Mercado Internacional de Hidrocarburos (Law of Special Contribution on Extraordinary Prices of the International Market of Hydrocarbons), Official Gazette, 15 April 2008.

  5. 5.

    Venezuela Holdings, B.V., Mobil Cerro Negro Holding, Ltd., Mobil Venezolana de Petróleos Holdings, Inc., Mobil Cerro Negro, Ltd., and Mobil Venezolana de Petróleos, Inc. v Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/27, Award (9 October 2014), para. 248.

  6. 6.

    Mobil Cerro Negro Ltd v Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. and PDVSA Cerro Negro, S.A., ICC Arbitration Case No. 15416/JRF/CA, Final Award of 23 December 2011, para. 458.

  7. 7.

    Mobil Cerro Negro Ltd v Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. and PDVSA Cerro Negro, S.A., ICC Arbitration Case No. 15416/JRF/CA, Final Award of 23 December 2011, para. 466, 470.

  8. 8.

    ConocoPhillips Petrozuata BV and others v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/30, Decision on Jurisdiction and on the Merits (3 September 2013), paras. 332, 359.

  9. 9.

    Law 2006-42 (Ecuador), Article 2.

  10. 10.

    Law 2006-42 (free translation) (Ecuador).

  11. 11.

    Burlington Resources Inc v Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5, Decision on Liability (14 December 2012), para. 430.

  12. 12.

    Burlington Resources Inc v Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5, Decision on Liability (14 December 2012), para. 456.

  13. 13.

    Perenco Ecuador Limited v Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/11, Decision on remaining issues of jurisdiction and liability (12 September 2014), para. 588 (footnote omitted).

  14. 14.

    ibid.

  15. 15.

    Perenco Ecuador Limited v Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/11, Decision on remaining issues of jurisdiction and liability (12 September 2014), para. 591.

  16. 16.

    Perenco Ecuador Limited v Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/11, Decision on remaining issues of jurisdiction and liability (12 September 2014), para. 595.

  17. 17.

    Murphy Exploration & Production CompanyInternational v Republic of Ecuador, UNCITRAL Case, Partial Final Award (16 May 2016), para. 276 (footnotes omitted).

  18. 18.

    Murphy Exploration & Production CompanyInternational v Republic of Ecuador, UNCITRAL Case, Partial Final Award (16 May 2016), para. 292.

  19. 19.

    Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/11, Award (5 October 2012), para. 509.

  20. 20.

    Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/11, Award (5 October 2012), para. 527.

  21. 21.

    Total SA v Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/1, Decision on Liability (27 December 2010), paras. 370, 374–376, 380.

  22. 22.

    ibid.

  23. 23.

    Total SA v Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/1, Decision on Liability (27 December 2010), paras. 434–436, 459.

  24. 24.

    An R-factor is “calculated each year as the ration of the contractor’s cumulative net revenue to this cumulative investments” (Bret-Rouzat and Favennec 2011).

  25. 25.

    Article 1, Decree 8807, Law that creates a special contribution for extraordinary and exorbitant prices in the international hydrocarbon market (20 February 2013) (Venezuela).

  26. 26.

    Resolución MEyP (Ministry of Economy Resolution) 532/2004 (4 August 2004) (Argentina).

  27. 27.

    Guo Fa (2006) No. 13 (China).

  28. 28.

    HC Deb 23 March 2011, vol 525, col 965 (United Kingdom), in this case particularly as regards impacts on fuel prices.

  29. 29.

    Law 2006-42 (Ecuador) (free translation). Burlington Resources Inc v Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5, Decision on Liability (14 December 2012), para. 155.

  30. 30.

    Burlington Resources Inc v Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5, Decision on Liability (14 December 2012), para. 137.

  31. 31.

    As regards the historical price excess fee, I was not able to access the official records of Angola. However, as regards current taxation regimes see Law 13/04 (24 December 2004) (Angola). The translation is provided by Sonangol on its website: http://www.sonangol.co.uk/wps/wcm/connect/f7d4ac804275ad53b8d0bc84497d7a5e/Law+13-04.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=f7d4ac804275ad53b8d0bc84497d7a5e. Last accessed 11 September 2015.

  32. 32.

    HC Deb 23 March 2011, vol 525, col 965 (United Kingdom).

  33. 33.

    Government of Kuwait v American Independent Oil Company (Aminoil), Award (24 March 1982), (1984) 66 International Law Reports, 518.

  34. 34.

    Government of Kuwait v American Independent Oil Company (Aminoil), Award (24 March 1982), (1984) 66 International Law Reports, 564 (emphasis added).

  35. 35.

    Burlington Resources Inc v Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5, Decision on Liability (14 December 2012), para. 155.

  36. 36.

    Total SA v Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/1, Decision on Liability (27 December 2010), para. 435, n. 610.

  37. 37.

    There is much in-depth analysis on these international investment cases. However, this chapter looks exclusively at the issue of how oil prices are used in the determination of damages, which is an issue that has not been extensively addressed in academic commentary.

  38. 38.

    As discussed further below, except in cases where oil and gas projects are at an early stage, international investment tribunals have frequently use the DCF method to calculate damages. The Yukos v Russia case is one of the notable exceptions to this practice.

  39. 39.

    However, analysis of how far futures already discount measures that may possibly be taken by States could be useful.

  40. 40.

    Phillips Petroleum Company Iran v Islamic Republic of Iran, National Iranian Oil Company, Award of 29 June 1989, 21 IUSCTR 79, paras. 125–130.

  41. 41.

    Anatolie and Gabriel Stati, Ascom SA and Terra Raf Trans Traiding Ltd v Kazakhstan, Award of 19 December 2013.

  42. 42.

    Anatolie and Gabriel Stati, Ascom SA and Terra Raf Trans Traiding Ltd v Kazakhstan, Award of 19 December 2013, para. 1617.

  43. 43.

    Anatolie and Gabriel Stati, Ascom SA and Terra Raf Trans Traiding Ltd v Kazakhstan, Award of 19 December 2013, para. 1623.

  44. 44.

    Anatolie and Gabriel Stati, Ascom SA and Terra Raf Trans Traiding Ltd v Kazakhstan, Award of 19 December 2013, para. 1686.

  45. 45.

    Venezuela Holdings B.V. Mobil Cerro Negro Holding Ltd., Mobil Venezolana de Petróleos Holdings, Inc., Mobil Cerro Negro, Ltd. and Mobil Venezolana de Petróleos, Inc. v Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/27, Award of 9 October 2014.

  46. 46.

    Venezuela Holdings B.V. Mobil Cerro Negro Holding Ltd., Mobil Venezolana de Petróleos Holdings, Inc., Mobil Cerro Negro, Ltd. and Mobil Venezolana de Petróleos, Inc. v Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/27, Award of 9 October 2014, para. 328.

  47. 47.

    Venezuela Holdings B.V. Mobil Cerro Negro Holding Ltd., Mobil Venezolana de Petróleos Holdings, Inc., Mobil Cerro Negro, Ltd. and Mobil Venezolana de Petróleos, Inc. v Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/27, Award of 9 October 2014, para. 329.

  48. 48.

    Venezuela Holdings B.V. Mobil Cerro Negro Holding Ltd., Mobil Venezolana de Petróleos Holdings, Inc., Mobil Cerro Negro, Ltd. and Mobil Venezolana de Petróleos, Inc. v Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/27, Award of 9 October 2014, para. 326.

  49. 49.

    Venezuela Holdings B.V. Mobil Cerro Negro Holding Ltd., Mobil Venezolana de Petróleos Holdings, Inc., Mobil Cerro Negro, Ltd. and Mobil Venezolana de Petróleos, Inc. v Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/27, Award of 9 October 2014, para. 328.

  50. 50.

    Venezuela Holdings B.V. Mobil Cerro Negro Holding Ltd., Mobil Venezolana de Petróleos Holdings, Inc., Mobil Cerro Negro, Ltd. and Mobil Venezolana de Petróleos, Inc. v Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/27, Decision on Annulment of 9 March 2017, para. 187.

  51. 51.

    Venezuela Holdings B.V. Mobil Cerro Negro Holding Ltd., Mobil Venezolana de Petróleos Holdings, Inc., Mobil Cerro Negro, Ltd. and Mobil Venezolana de Petróleos, Inc. v Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/27, Award of 9 October 2014, para. 385.

  52. 52.

    Mobil Cerro Negro Ltd v Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. and PDVSA Cerro Negro, S.A., ICC Arbitration Case No. 15416/JRF/CA, Final Award of 23 December 2011, para. 769.

  53. 53.

    Mobil Cerro Negro Ltd v Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. and PDVSA Cerro Negro, S.A., ICC Arbitration Case No. 15416/JRF/CA, Final Award of 23 December 2011, paras. 695–695.

  54. 54.

    Murphy Exploration & Production Company International v Ecuador, Partial Final Award of 6 May 2016.

  55. 55.

    Murphy Exploration & Production Company International v Ecuador, Partial Final Award of 6 May 2016, para. 488.

  56. 56.

    ibid.

  57. 57.

    Murphy Exploration & Production Company International v Ecuador, Partial Final Award of 6 May 2016, para. 489.

  58. 58.

    Burlington Resources Inc. v Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5, Decision on Reconsideration and Award of 7 February 2017.

  59. 59.

    Burlington Resources Inc v Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5, Decision on Liability (14 December 2012), para. 456.

  60. 60.

    Burlington Resources Inc v Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5, Decision on Liability (14 December 2012), para. 123.

  61. 61.

    Burlington Resources Inc. v Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5, Decision on Reconsideration and Award of 7 February 2017, para. 478.

  62. 62.

    Burlington Resources Inc. v Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5, Decision on Reconsideration and Award of 7 February 2017, para. 480.

  63. 63.

    Burlington Resources Inc. v Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5, Decision on Reconsideration and Award of 7 February 2017, paras. 470–471.

  64. 64.

    Burlington Resources Inc. v Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5, Decision on Reconsideration and Award of 7 February 2017, paras. 470, 481.

  65. 65.

    Occidental Exploration and Production Company v The Republic of Ecuador, LCIA Case No. UN3467 (UNCITRAL), Award of 1 July 2004.

  66. 66.

    Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v The Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/11, Award of 5 October 2012.

  67. 67.

    Occidental Exploration and Production Company v The Republic of Ecuador, LCIA Case No. UN3467 (UNCITRAL), Award of 1 July 2004, para. 210.

  68. 68.

    Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v The Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/11, Award of 5 October 2012, para. 754.

  69. 69.

    Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v The Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/11, Award of 5 October 2012, para. 726.

  70. 70.

    Total S.A. v The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/01, Award of 27 November 2013.

  71. 71.

    El Paso Energy International Company v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/15, Award of 31 October 2011.

  72. 72.

    Total S.A. v The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/01, Award of 27 November 2013, para. 204 (Childs 2011).

  73. 73.

    Total S.A. v The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/01, Award of 27 November 2013, para. 217.

  74. 74.

    Total S.A. v The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/01, Award of 27 November 2013, para. 199.

  75. 75.

    Total S.A. v The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/01, Award of 27 November 2013, para. 210.

  76. 76.

    ibid.

  77. 77.

    El Paso Energy International Company v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/15, Award of 31 October 2011, para. 735.

  78. 78.

    El Paso Energy International Company v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/15, Dissenting Opinion of Prof. Brigitte Stern, 31 October 2011 (Desierto 2012).

  79. 79.

    El Paso Energy International Company v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/15, Award of 31 October 2011, para. 297.

  80. 80.

    Yukos v Russia in fact encompasses three related cases decided under the ECT by the Permanent Court of Arbitration: Hulley Enterprises Limited (Cyprus) v Russian Federation, PCA Case No. AA 226; Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v Russian Federation, PCA Case No. AA 227; and Veteran Petroleum Limited (Cyprus) v Russian Federation, PCA Case No. AA 228. The claimants in these three cases jointly held 70.5% of the shares in OAO Yukos Oil Company. The cases have some interesting jurisdictional issues, such as the provisional application of the ECT despite Russia not having ratified it.

  81. 81.

    Hulley Enterprises Limited (Cyprus) v Russian Federation, PCA Case No. AA 226; Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v Russian Federation, PCA Case No. AA 227; and Veteran Petroleum Limited (Cyprus) v Russian Federation, PCA Case No. AA 228, Awards of 18 July 2014.

  82. 82.

    Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v Russian Federation, PCA Case No. AA 227, Award of 18 July 2014, para. 1767.

  83. 83.

    Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v Russian Federation, PCA Case No. AA 227, Award of 18 July 2014, para. 1768.

  84. 84.

    The Tribunal explained its rejection of the DCF method, noting that claimant’s expert’s result had been influenced by pre-determined values. It did not go into detail on the issue of the oil prices used in its calculation.

  85. 85.

    Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v Russian Federation, PCA Case No. AA 227; and Veteran Petroleum Limited (Cyprus) v Russian Federation, PCA Case No. AA 228, paras. 1785–1787.

  86. 86.

    Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v Russian Federation, PCA Case No. AA 227; and Veteran Petroleum Limited (Cyprus) v Russian Federation, PCA Case No. AA 228, paras. 1788, 1811, (Lamb et al. 2015).

  87. 87.

    Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v Russian Federation, PCA Case No. AA 227; and Veteran Petroleum Limited (Cyprus) v Russian Federation, PCA Case No. AA 228, section XII(C)(4)(b).

  88. 88.

    Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v Russian Federation, PCA Case No. AA 227; and Veteran Petroleum Limited (Cyprus) v Russian Federation, PCA Case No. AA 228, paras. 1805, 1811.

References

  • Abdala, M. A. (2009). Key damage compensation issues in oil and gas international arbitration cases. American University Law Review, 24(2), 551–553.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bambarger, C., & Wälde, T. (2007). The energy charter treaty. In M. M. Roggenkamp, C. Redgwell, I. del Guayo, & A. Rønne (Eds.), Energy law in Europe (p. 145). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair, J. M. (1976). The control of oil. Pantheon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bremen, J., & Roberts, P. (2013). United Kingdom. In E. G. Pereira, K. Talus (Eds.), Upstream law and regulation (pp. 424–425). Globe Law and Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bret-Rouzat, N., & Favennec, J. P. (2011). Oil and gas exploration and production: Reserves, costs, contracts (p. 208). Paris: Editions Technip.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M. E. (1979). The nationalization of the Iraqi Petroleum Company. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 10, 107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, P. D. (2010). International energy investment law (pp. 122, 123, 136). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cárdenas García, J. (2011). Rebalancing oil contracts in Venezuela. Houston Journal of International Law, 33(2), 235, 262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardenas Garcia, J. (2013). ‘Venezuela’. In E. G. Pereira, K. Talus (Eds.), Upstream law and regulation (pp. 310–314). Globe Law and Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalabi, F. (2010). Oil policies, oil myths: Analysis and memoir of an opec ‘insider’. London: I. B. Tauris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Childs, T. C. C. (2011). Update on Lex Petrolea: The continuing development of customary law relating to international oil and gas exploration and production. Journal of World Energy Law and Business, 4(3), 214, 243–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christiansen, M. D. (2015). Legal developments in 2014 affecting the oil and gas exploration and production industry. Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation Journal, 52(1), 67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, M., & Cummins, T. (2012) Resource nationalism: A gathering storm? International Energy Law Review, 6, 220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desierto, D. A. (2012). ICESCR minimum core obligations and investment: Recasting the non-expropriation compensation model during financial crises. George Washington International Law Review, 44(3), 473, 501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolzer, R. (2015). International co-operation in energy affairs. Recueil des Cours, 372, 397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eljurin, E., & Trevino, C. (2015). Energy investment disputes in Latin America: The pursuit of stability. Berkeley Journal of International Law, 33(2), 306, 322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erkan, M. (2011). International energy investment law: Stability through contractual clauses. Wolters Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Exposure Draft. (2011). Petroleum resource rent tax extension, explanatory material (para. 1.3).

    Google Scholar 

  • General Accountability Office. (2013). United States General Accountability Office, Report to the Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate. Oil and gas resources, actions needed for interior to better ensure a fair return’ (pp. 2–3).

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, C. (1982). State contracts in international law—The Libyan oil arbitrations. British Yearbook of International Law, 53(1), 27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guriev, S., Kolotilin, A., & Sonin, K. (2011). Determinants of nationalization in the oil sector: A theory and evidence from panel data. The Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 27(2), 301.

    Google Scholar 

  • ILC. (2001). ILC commentaries to draft articles on state responsibility. Commentary to Draft Article 36, paras. 26, 27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamb, S. J., Lee, A., & Rowe, S. J. (2015). Compensation in energy arbitration. In J. W. Rowley (Ed.), The guide to energy arbitrations (pp. 249–253). Global Arbitration Review.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marboe, I. (2006). Compensation and damages in international law: The limits of fair market value. Journal of World Investment and Trade, 7(5), 740.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ripinsky, S., & Williams, K. (2008). Damages in international investment law (p. 75). BIICL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, H., & Cazier-Darmois, M. (2015). Expert evidence. In J. W. Rowley (Ed.), The guide to energy arbitrations (p. 268). GAR 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taverne, B. (1996). Production sharing agreements in principle and in practice. In M. R. David (Ed.), Upstream oil and gas agreements (p. 64). London: Sweet & Maxwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wälde, T. (2008). Renegotiating acquired rights in the oil and gas industries: Industry and political cycles meet the rule of law. Journal of World Energy Law and Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yergin, D. (1992). The prize: The epic quest for oil, money, and power. Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yergin, D. (2011). The quest: Energy, security and the remaking of the modern world. Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Veronica Lavista .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Lavista, V. (2020). Oil Prices in Investment Arbitration, Partial Assimilation. In: Belyi, A. (eds) Beyond Market Assumptions: Oil Price as a Global Institution. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29089-4_6

Download citation