What compensation outcomes resulted from international arbitration cases brought by ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil against Venezuela?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
ConocoPhillips won multiple arbitration awards totalling roughly $10–11 billion when interest is included: an ICSID award of about US$8.7 billion plus US$20.4 million in costs (later described in reporting as ~$8.37–8.5 billion after adjustments) and a separate ICC award of roughly US$2 billion, and has begun enforcement actions abroad as tribunals have rejected Venezuela’s annulment attempts [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. ExxonMobil’s litigation produced a far smaller and more mixed outcome: a World Bank (ICSID) award of about US$1.6 billion in 2014 that was at times partially annulled or reworked, and more recently much smaller residual awards in related proceedings (including resubmitted claims that yielded awards in the tens of millions), leaving Exxon with a patchwork of wins and legal uncertainty [6] [7] [8].
1. ConocoPhillips: multibillion-dollar awards and active enforcement
An ICSID tribunal concluded in 2019 that Venezuela’s 2007 expropriations were unlawful and ordered the Republic to pay roughly US$8.7 billion in damages plus about US$20.4 million in arbitration costs, a decision that ConocoPhillips later sought to enforce globally after Venezuela’s annulment attempts failed or were dismissed [1] [3] [2]. Separately, Conoco secured an ICC award against PDVSA for roughly US$2 billion tied to the same nationalizations and contractual failures, meaning the company holds at least two multibillion-dollar instruments it is trying to collect on [2]. Enforcement has moved into foreign courts: Conoco has sought recognition of the ICSID award in jurisdictions such as Trinidad and Tobago and participated in litigation around Venezuelan assets and the CITGO-directed auction process in the United States as it seeks tangible recovery [9] [5] [4].
2. The arithmetic: headline awards versus accrued interest and adjustments
Reporting shows variation in how the principal figures are described — outlets cite US$8.7 billion, US$8.37 billion, or US$8.5 billion for the ICSID award depending on rectifications and later committee rulings — and interest has pushed the effective liability well above the principal so that some observers report the Conoco ICSID debt exceeding US$11 billion with accrued interest [1] [4] [5]. The ICC award is commonly reported at about US$2 billion, resulting in combined instruments that put Conoco’s claims against Venezuela in the double‑digit billions before accounting for collection discounts, offsets, or enforcement costs [2] [3] [5].
3. ExxonMobil: a fragmented victory with partial annulments and smaller resubmissions
ExxonMobil’s path has been less straightforward: an ICSID tribunal ordered Venezuela to pay about US$1.6 billion in 2014 for nationalizations, but that award has been subject to partial annulment and recalculation in subsequent proceedings and resubmissions, producing much smaller awards in some later decisions [6] [7]. For example, a resubmitted claim produced an award in the order of US$77 million in a later World Bank decision, illustrating that Exxon’s original multi‑billion claim was significantly reduced through procedural challenges and re-evaluation [8]. Legal commentators and the law firm briefing note that different tribunals and stages produced results that each side could portray as a victory, reflecting complex calculations of compensation and costs [7].
4. Enforcement reality: awards are meaningful legally but hard to collect
While tribunals have issued enforceable awards in Conoco’s and Exxon’s favor, Venezuela has a record of contesting collection, seeking annulments, and restructuring assets in ways that complicate recovery — a pattern illustrated by Conoco’s need to pursue asset attachments, to litigate in multiple jurisdictions, and to engage in court processes related to CITGO and other assets [10] [11] [9] [5]. Reporting notes both legal successes for claimants and the practical obstacles of turning judgments into cash when a sovereign resists payment or when award amounts are reduced or offset by other rulings [10] [7] [9].
5. Competing narratives and critiques of investor-state arbitration
Critics argue that the massive claims and awards reflect industry strategies to “rewrite contracts” via investment arbitration and to capitalize on legal fora rather than political negotiation, a critique applied especially to the large Conoco and Exxon claims and raised by analysts who stress the complex factual backgrounds and prior confidential communications revealed in diplomatic cables [12]. Proponents counter that tribunals found Venezuela breached fair‑treatment obligations and failed to compensate properly, justifying the multibillion awards — a split that underscores how these high‑stakes arbitrations are both legal remedies and political flashpoints [3] [1] [7].