Whoa horsey. You can't compare apples and oranges. It is difficult from what I read so far to know exactly what the facts are, but it does appear that at least when Exxon entered the project, the potential damages were in fact very speculative:

"But Exxon insists it should also be compensated for the increased value of the project, which at its outset in the early 1990s was considered risky because of low oil prices and uncertainty about the relatively untested operations to turn tar-like Orinoco oil into valuable light crude."

Quite possibly the project remained speculative at the time arbitration was filed. If it did, then the damages were justifiably limited. Review the two prong test that John Gotanda articulated in his article. I thus see no basis to feel negative at all about our case. Whereas in Exxon's case, the project might have been "risky" and involved "untested operations", in kry's case, the circumstances appear to be totally different.