Which arbitration awards did ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips win against Venezuela and what payments remain outstanding?
Executive summary
Two major arbitration fights from Venezuela’s 2007 nationalizations ended in binding awards for ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil: ConocoPhillips won an ICSID award for roughly US$8.7 billion (plus about US$20.4 million in arbitration costs), and ExxonMobil’s long-running claims have produced a mixed record—an earlier US$1.6 billion award was annulled but resubmitted proceedings have yielded smaller awards including a US$77 million decision—while both claimants continue enforcement efforts to recover unpaid sums [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. ConocoPhillips’ big win and what it covers
An ICSID tribunal in March 2019 ordered Venezuela to pay approximately US$8.7 billion for unlawful expropriation of ConocoPhillips’ Hamaca, Petrozuata and related projects, and added about US$20.4 million to cover arbitration costs, a ruling rooted in the tribunal’s finding that Venezuela failed to negotiate in good faith and offered only book-value compensation rather than fair market value [1] [5] [6]. ConocoPhillips also secured a separate ICC contractual award of roughly US$2 billion against PDVSA tied to contractual breaches after the expropriation, and reported in 2018 that it had entered a settlement with PDVSA to recover the ICC award amount [2] [5].
2. Enforcement, partial payments and collection tactics
Collecting on the multi‑billion awards has been piecemeal and litigious: PDVSA delivered US$400 million after ConocoPhillips began attaching assets in the Caribbean, and Conoco has used courts in multiple jurisdictions—pursuing receivership and seizure remedies, including a Trinidad and Tobago court action to appoint a receiver over payments due to Venezuela’s PDVSA—to try to turn awards into cash flows [3] [7] [5]. ConocoPhillips previously accepted a US$2 billion settlement from PDVSA that temporarily suspended enforcement in exchange for regular payments under that deal [8] [2].
3. ExxonMobil’s fractured record and recent resubmissions
ExxonMobil’s 2014 ICSID award of about US$1.6 billion was annulled in 2015, leaving the company to press new or resubmitted claims; subsequent proceedings produced smaller awards on resubmission—reporting cites a US$77 million award related to the Cerro Negro and La Ceiba claims—and other summaries point to awards in the low‑hundreds of millions for invested capital depending on the tribunal and claims considered [3] [4] [9]. Different legal forums have produced different numbers and outcomes, and Exxon has continued litigation to restore or enforce portions of the earlier award [9] [10].
4. What remains outstanding — legal reality and reporting limits
Available sources show that Venezuela has not paid the full ConocoPhillips ICSID sum and continues to contest enforcement even as annulment attempts failed in key moments, leaving most of the roughly US$8.7 billion award effectively unpaid and subject to enforcement actions and interest accruals; precise current unpaid balances depend on interest, partial settlements (such as the US$2 billion/US$400 million items) and ongoing court recognitions across jurisdictions [1] [2] [3] [8] [7]. For Exxon, the picture is more fragmented: the annulment of the 2014 US$1.6 billion award and later resubmission outcomes (including a reported US$77 million award) mean outstanding exposure exists but exact net unpaid amounts are unclear from the reporting provided and vary by tribunal and resubmission posture [3] [4] [9].
5. Competing narratives, stakes and geopolitical context
Legal victories have translated into enforceable judgments in some U.S. and regional courts—making arbitration awards a recognized creditor claim against Venezuela—but collection has been complicated by settlements, partial payments, jurisdictional maneuvers, and Venezuela’s broader debt distress, which analysts say includes tens of billions in defaulted obligations and arbitration liabilities that can complicate who actually gets paid first [11] [3] [7]. Reporting varies by source: company statements emphasize settlement recoveries and enforcement wins [2] [8], arbitration specialists note annulments and resubmissions that reduce clarity [9] [3], and financial coverage underscores that converting awards into cash remains a political and legal slog [11].
Limitations: public sources cited here document the awards, partial settlements and certain payments (US$2 billion settlement, US$400 million delivery, receivership steps), but do not provide a single, up‑to‑date ledger of net outstanding balances after interest and payments; that precise figure is therefore not ascertainable from the documents provided [2] [8] [3] [7].