Which U.S. oil companies have active legal claims against Venezuela and what are the sizes of those claims?
Executive summary
Two legacy U.S. oil majors — ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips — are the principal American firms with active, high‑value legal claims stemming from Venezuela’s 2007 nationalizations, with Conoco’s arbitration award long reported at about $9 billion and Exxon pursuing roughly $2 billion in claims among other disputes [1] [2] [3]. Chevron, by contrast, negotiated accommodations with Caracas and remains the only large U.S. oil company operating in Venezuela under U.S. licensing, so it does not carry the same outstanding arbitration exposure as Exxon and Conoco [2] [4].
1. Who is suing Caracas: ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips — and how big are their claims?
ConocoPhillips has secured a multibillion‑dollar arbitration award that was affirmed by a World Bank arbitration body and remained unpaid by Venezuela as of early 2026; reporting cites the award figure at roughly $9 billion [1]. ExxonMobil’s outstanding claims against Venezuela have been described in recent coverage as “around $2 billion,” reflecting a long fight that clinicians of the dispute say dates back to post‑2007 expropriations and has played out in international courts since at least 2008 [2] [3]. Multiple outlets summarize these two companies as the principal U.S. claimants seeking compensation for assets taken during the Chavez‑era nationalizations [3] [2] [5].
2. What exactly are these legal fights about — oil or compensation for assets?
The core of the litigation is compensation for expropriated foreign assets and contractual interests, not a claim to Venezuela’s sovereign oil reserves themselves; experts and fact‑checks stress that international tribunals adjudicate unpaid compensation for seized assets, while ownership of hydrocarbon reserves rests with the Venezuelan state under national and international law [1] [5]. Reporting notes that tribunals have ordered Venezuela to pay billions in awards across many claimants — Conoco and Exxon figure prominently among those seeking restitution for lost investments and infrastructure [5] [3].
3. How big is the broader tab Venezuela faces from international claims?
Beyond the two U.S. majors, analysts tally a sweeping portfolio of international awards and claims against Caracas that cumulatively run into the tens of billions; one Canadian outlet summarized tribunal orders and other claims as roughly $60 billion against Venezuela in total, illustrating the wider legal and fiscal burden beyond any single filing [5]. That aggregate helps explain why U.S. policymakers and oil executives discuss compensation and legal recovery as prerequisites for a substantive return of foreign investment, not merely a political opening [2] [6].
4. Chevron’s distinct posture — operating but circumscribed
Chevron negotiated terms with Caracas in prior years and obtained U.S. authorizations to operate within very limited parameters, making it the only big U.S. oil company with an active on‑the‑ground presence in Venezuela as of 2026; it has not pursued the same headline arbitration path as Exxon and Conoco and is often described as having reached accommodation rather than litigating giant compensation awards [2] [4]. Coverage emphasizes Chevron’s unique position: operational access under licensing, but exposure to political and sanction risk that complicates any large‑scale re‑entry [4].
5. Limits of the record and why numbers vary
Public reports diverge on precise totals because claims are lodged across jurisdictions, some awards are contested or partially enforced, and Venezuela has sometimes resisted payment; individual figures cited in mainstream coverage — Conoco’s ~$9 billion award and Exxon's ~$2 billion claim — are the best‑documented amounts in the cited reporting, but they do not capture every pending suit or lower‑value creditor claim that feeds into the roughly $60 billion aggregate reported by CBC [1] [2] [5]. Where reporting is silent about other claimants or the precise legal posture of ongoing enforcement actions, this analysis notes that limitation rather than extrapolating beyond the cited sources.