Which legal arbitration cases did ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil pursue against Venezuela and what were their outcomes?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil each brought multiple international arbitrations against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela after the 2007 nationalizations of projects in the Orinoco Belt; ConocoPhillips won a multi‑billion dollar ICSID award later upheld by an annulment committee, while ExxonMobil secured smaller ICSID awards and pursued parallel contractual claims and enforcement measures against PDVSA and related assets [1] [2] [3] [4]. Both sets of proceedings triggered years of litigation over compensation, enforcement and Venezuela’s attempts to resist or annul awards, illustrating how investor‑state arbitration became the principal route for U.S. oil majors to seek redress [5] [6] [7].
1. ConocoPhillips v. Venezuela — the ICSID award and follow‑on ICC settlement
ConocoPhillips initiated treaty arbitration at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) over the 2007 expropriations of its Petrozuata, Hamaca and Corocoro interests, and the tribunal ordered Venezuela to pay roughly US$8.7 billion in damages plus arbitration costs in a March 2019 award (reported figures vary slightly across sources) [1] [5]. Venezuela applied to annul that award but an ICSID annulment committee dismissed the annulment request in January 2025, clearing the path for enforcement and prompting reporting that the award stood at about US$8.37–8.7 billion and that ConocoPhillips had also recovered roughly US$2 billion from PDVSA in a separate ICC contractual arbitration and settlement [2] [8] [4]. These decisions together made ConocoPhillips one of the largest arbitration claimants against Venezuela and set in motion collection efforts against Venezuelan assets overseas [5] [6].
2. ExxonMobil’s arbitrations — ICSID awards, offsets and parallel contractual claims
ExxonMobil’s disputes — brought by subsidiaries under bilateral investment treaties — focused on the Cerro Negro and La Ceiba projects and resulted in ICSID findings that some measures were unlawful but produced awards much smaller than the company’s claims: tribunals ordered compensation in the order of US$1.6 billion overall, made up of awards for production/export curtailments and for expropriation of Cerro Negro and La Ceiba (the figures reported include US$1,411.7 million for Cerro Negro and US$179.3 million for La Ceiba, plus amounts for curtailed production) [3] [9]. The tribunals also dealt with technical issues such as set‑offs against parallel contractual arbitrations and questions about arbitral caps and double recovery, producing a mixed outcome that was legally favorable on liability in parts but limited in quantum compared with Exxon’s initial demands [9] [3].
3. Enforcement, asset freezes and litigation strategy
Both companies moved from victory on the merits to long, complex enforcement campaigns: ConocoPhillips sought to seize Venezuelan assets and placed claims in litigation over CITGO shares in U.S. courts and other jurisdictions, while ExxonMobil obtained temporary freezes and pursued enforcement of awards against PDVSA‑connected revenue streams and foreign assets (reports document freezing orders and enforcement actions in U.S., Dutch and British courts) [6] [10] [11]. Venezuela repeatedly challenged panel members and sought annulments or other remedies, and the state’s 2012 denunciation of ICSID complicated but did not erase liability for cases already initiated — a factor Venezuelan officials and sympathetic outlets have used to argue the awards are illegitimate while creditors and law firms emphasize enforceability under international arbitration practice [7] [6].
4. Broader stakes, contested narratives and the practical outcome
The practical outcomes diverge: ConocoPhillips emerged with a large, sustained award that an annulment committee refused to set aside, increasing the company’s leverage for collection [2] [8], while ExxonMobil obtained enforceable ICSID awards of roughly US$1.6 billion and pursued parallel contractual recoveries, but both firms faced the reality that collecting against a cash‑strapped sovereign and its state oil company is time‑consuming and politically charged [3] [4]. Venezuelan sources and left‑leaning commentators emphasize sovereign rights and negotiation attempts, arguing the restructurings were lawful and that arbitration reflects geopolitical pressure, whereas law firms and arbitration trackers highlight treaty protections and tribunal findings of unlawful expropriation or inadequate compensation — both perspectives are present in the public record [12] [10] [9].
5. Conclusion
The arbitration record is clear that ConocoPhillips secured a roughly US$8+ billion ICSID award later sustained on annulment, and ExxonMobil obtained multiple awards totaling around US$1.6 billion with other contractual recoveries pursued against PDVSA; however, the phase that followed — enforcement, asset seizures and political resistance from Venezuela — has been at least as consequential as the tribunal rulings themselves and remains an ongoing, jurisdiction‑spanning contest reported across legal and media sources [1] [2] [3] [4] [6].