Which arbitration cases did ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil win or lose against Venezuela and what were the awards?
Executive summary
ConocoPhillips secured a substantial victory in ICSID arbitration for the 2007 nationalizations, with tribunals ordering roughly $8.7–$8.37 billion plus costs (award issued 2019 and later upheld against annulment attempts) and related ICC awards against PDVSA, while ExxonMobil’s claims produced smaller, mixed outcomes—an ICSID award in 2014 of about $1.6 billion for certain losses amid findings that the expropriation was lawful for some projects, leaving Exxon’s overall recoveries and enforcement status fragmented (ConocoPhillips: [1]; [2]; [3]; [4]; ExxonMobil: [5]; [6]; [7]5).
1. ConocoPhillips: a marquee ICSID win and follow‑on ICC recovery
A World Bank tribunal at ICSID unanimously found in 2019 that Venezuela unlawfully expropriated ConocoPhillips’ interests in major Orinoco projects and ordered the state to pay about $8.7 billion in damages plus roughly $20.4 million in arbitration costs; that award was subject to annulment requests by Venezuela but an ICSID annulment committee later dismissed Venezuela’s challenge, clearing the path for enforcement (ConocoPhillips press release and ICSID record: [1]; [2]; reporting on annulment dismissal: [3]; p1_s3).
2. Conoco’s parallel ICC award and settlements with PDVSA
Beyond ICSID, ConocoPhillips won additional relief in an ICC contractual arbitration against PDVSA related to the Corocoro project and in practice used settlement negotiations to recover portions of awards—Conoco announced a 2018 settlement with PDVSA to recover amounts owed under the ICC award and later agreed a 2019 settlement to suspend enforcement in exchange for payment schedules, illustrating that legal victories translated into a patchwork of court awards, ICC rulings and negotiated recoveries (ICC award and settlement reporting: [1]; [8]; p1_s2).
3. ExxonMobil: smaller awards, legal complexity and “lawful” expropriation findings
ExxonMobil’s high‑profile arbitrations produced a different legal map: the ICSID tribunal decisions issued around 2014 fixed compensation for seized projects at substantially smaller sums than ConocoPhillips’ award—commonly reported as about $1.6 billion—and the tribunals in key findings characterized some of Venezuela’s measures as lawful expropriation or at least rejected certain treaty claims, which limited Exxon’s ability to claim full-market-value compensation tied to unlawful takings (reported award figure and summary of tribunal reasoning: [6]; legal analysis summarizing tribunal findings and characterization of expropriation as lawful: p1_s7).
4. Why the outcomes diverged: facts, legal theories and procedural posture
The contrast between Conoco’s large ICSID victory and Exxon’s more modest recoveries reflects differences in the legal framing, evidentiary record and treaty claims: tribunals in Conoco found Venezuela failed to negotiate in good faith and offered book-value rather than fair-market compensation, producing an “unlawful expropriation” finding and large damages, whereas Exxon’s submissions on FET and compensation were treated less favorably and the tribunal gave weight to the State’s legal route for nationalization—outcomes noted in tribunal reasoning and legal commentary (tribunal reasoning comparisons: [5]; Conoco’s majority unlawful-expropriation finding: [7]; p1_s8).
5. Enforcement, annulments and real‑world collection problems
Even after favorable awards, practical recovery has been uneven: Venezuela has repeatedly challenged awards and sought annulments, and claimants have pursued enforcement in multiple jurisdictions and negotiated settlements with state oil entities—Conoco’s 2019 award faced annulment attempts that were rejected and led to enforcement efforts and settlements, while Exxon’s recoveries remained fragmented and subject to further litigation and enforcement actions (annulment attempts and enforcement/settlement reporting: [3]; [4]; [8]; [7]5).
6. Competing narratives and political stakes
Legal reporting and corporate statements stress treaty‑based vindication of investor rights, while Venezuelan and some critical commentators emphasize sovereignty and argue that the underlying regulatory changes were legitimate policy responses, pointing to the 2001 hydrocarbons law and state fiscal rules as context; sources range from company press releases and ICSID records to independent legal analyses, and each actor has implicit agendas—companies seek recoveries and public vindication, Venezuela defends sovereign measures and delay tactics—so the awards must be read as juridical outcomes embedded in geopolitical and enforcement limits (background on legal/political context and critical commentary: [7]; [9]; [7]3).