Which international arbitration cases have foreign oil companies won against Venezuela since 2007 and what were the awards?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Since 2007 the most prominent foreign oil-company arbitration victories against Venezuela are ConocoPhillips’ multibillion-dollar ICSID award for three expropriated projects and a series of awards and settlements involving ExxonMobil and its subsidiaries arising from the same 2007 nationalizations; the exact dollar figures vary across tribunals, offsets and later rulings, and Venezuela has repeatedly contested enforcement (ConocoPhillips: ~USD 8.4–8.7 billion; Exxon-related awards: multiple awards/settlements in the low‑hundreds of millions to roughly USD 1.4–1.6 billion) [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. ConocoPhillips — the headline ICSID win and related ICC awards
ConocoPhillips brought claims over Venezuela’s 2007 takeover of its stakes in Petrozuata, Hamaca and Corocoro and won an ICSID award in 2019 that tribunals and reporting have variously quantified at roughly USD 8.37–8.7 billion, plus interest and costs, after finding the expropriation unlawful [1] [2] [3]. That ICSID award survived Venezuela’s later annulment attempts — courts or committees dismissed annulment requests and the award’s interest component has been reported to push the liability above USD 11 billion when interest is applied, while ConocoPhillips also secured a separate ICC contractual award of about USD 2 billion against PDVSA in 2018 for related breaches and reached a 2018 settlement with PDVSA to recover the ICC sum [6] [2] [3].
2. ExxonMobil and its subsidiaries — a patchwork of awards, offsets and settlements
ExxonMobil and five subsidiaries pursued multiple arbitrations after the 2007 measures; tribunals awarded the Exxon claimants amounts reported variously as about USD 1.4 billion (ICSID award in the ExxonMobil subsidiaries case) and as USD 1.6 billion in some outlets, while other awards and set-offs arose from ICC proceedings and prior recoveries that reduced cash payable from Venezuela — for example, an ICC award and set‑offs left Exxon with lower net cash receipts and Venezuela paid Exxon roughly USD 255 million in a settlement reported in 2012 [4] [7] [5] [8]. More recently Exxon sought enforcement of additional resubmitted claims and in 2023 an ICSID resubmission produced a USD 77 million award tied to offshore enforcement actions, illustrating how Exxon’s recoveries are a combination of multiple tribunal decisions, offsets and enforcement actions [9].
3. Smaller or parallel victories and how reporting frames the totals
Other foreign claimants have obtained awards or settlements: Canadian miners and other investors won seven- and eight‑figure or multibillion-dollar outcomes in separate arbitrations and some of those decisions were later settled or enforced via third‑party litigation [5]. Reporting emphasizes ConocoPhillips as the single largest oil-sector victory against Venezuela since 2007, while ExxonMobil’s outcome is more fragmented — multiple awards, offsets and partial payments across ICSID and ICC processes mean headline numbers differ by outlet and over time as set‑offs and enforcement unfold [5] [4] [9].
4. Enforcement, interest and practical collection — the gap between award and recovery
Winning an arbitration is not identical to collecting payment: Venezuela has frequently contested enforcement, sought annulments and resisted payment, and U.S. and foreign courts have been used to try to attach Venezuelan assets such as PDVSA/ CITGO or payment streams to satisfy awards, producing a complex enforcement landscape where interest, legal fees and enforcement rulings materially change the effective sum recoverable [5] [3] [9]. Several sources report that ConocoPhillips’ award carries significant interest (reported at about 5.5% annually in some legal briefings), increasing the monetary burden on Venezuela and complicating any negotiated resolution [3].
5. What the sources do — and do not — resolve
Primary reporting and legal summaries agree that ConocoPhillips secured the largest single arbitration award tied to the 2007 nationalizations and that ExxonMobil’s claims resulted in multiple awards, set‑offs and partial payments, but exact consolidated tallies vary across tribunal documents, press reports and later enforcement rulings; this account is limited to the provided reporting and does not attempt to reconcile every figure from primary tribunal texts not supplied here [1] [4] [5] [9].