What arbitration awards have been issued to ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil over Venezuela’s 2007 expropriations, and what enforcement actions followed?
Executive summary
ConocoPhillips secured multiple arbitration awards against Venezuela stemming from the 2007 expropriations — most prominently an ICSID award of roughly $8.7–8.75 billion in 2019 (plus earlier ICC relief), bringing Conoco’s total arbitration recoveries to about $10.7 billion under two proceedings — and has pursued enforcement in U.S. courts and against PDVSA/Citgo assets [1] [2] [3] [4]. ExxonMobil’s litigation produced smaller and more fragmented outcomes: an ICSID award of roughly $1.6 billion for Cerro Negro and La Ceiba (with complex offsets and parallel contractual proceedings) and other arbitral awards, but those awards have faced annulment efforts and procedural hurdles in enforcement [5] [2] [3].
1. The ConocoPhillips awards: amounts, forums and legal findings
An ICSID tribunal in March 2019 declared Venezuela’s 2007 takeovers of ConocoPhillips’ Petrozuata, Hamaca and Corocoro interests unlawful and ordered roughly $8.7–8.75 billion in compensation plus costs and interest; Conoco had earlier won an ICC contractual award of about $2.04 billion, bringing the company’s aggregate arbitration victories to roughly $10.7 billion across multiple tribunals [1] [3] [2].
2. Conoco’s enforcement push and Venezuela’s procedural counterattacks
ConocoPhillips moved from winning awards to enforcing them: U.S. courts granted a default judgment upholding the ICSID award in August 2022 and the company has pursued remedies in U.S. courts and attempted to attach PDVSA-related assets — including litigation directed at Citgo parent shares in Delaware — while Venezuela repeatedly sought annulment or rectification of awards [4] [3] [6].
3. ExxonMobil’s awards: mixed victories and legal complexity
ExxonMobil’s ICSID outcome for the Cerro Negro and La Ceiba projects produced awards in the low billions — commonly cited as about $1.6 billion — with the tribunal framing compensation in light of valuation date and offsets; other awards and contractual arbitrations added or offset quantum, and tribunals weighed whether expropriations complied with due process and “just” compensation requirements [5] [7] [8].
4. Enforcement struggles: why judgments don’t equal cash in hand
Both companies have faced the practical reality that a favorable arbitral award is only the start of collection: Venezuela has mounted annulment and jurisdiction challenges, some courts have blocked enforcement on procedural grounds, and attaching Venezuelan state-controlled assets — particularly when assets are inside third jurisdictions or contested between competing Venezuelan authorities — has proven legally and practically fraught [3] [9] [5].
5. Annulments, set-offs and the tug-of-war over legal theory
Venezuela’s legal strategy has mixed tactics — seeking annulment or rectification of awards and arguing offsets via parallel contractual awards — and tribunals have split: Conoco’s unlawful-expropriation finding survived annulment challenges according to the public reporting cited, while Exxon’s claims were treated more narrowly by tribunals that found expropriation lawful in part and adjusted quantum accordingly, producing complicated final sums and set-offs [9] [6] [5].
6. What the record shows — and what it does not
The reporting shows clear award figures and a chain of enforcement efforts in U.S. courts and ICC/ICSID proceedings, plus Venezuela’s persistent legal challenges, but public sources do not uniformly document final cash payments made by Venezuela; available reporting documents awards, annulment outcomes and litigation steps rather than a full ledger of collections or seizures against specific assets beyond litigation filings and some court orders [1] [2] [4] [3].