Conflict minerals

The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 requires ExxonMobil to make certain disclosures concerning supply sources for conflict minerals.

Article Sept. 4, 2018

Conflict minerals

Section 13(p) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 13p-1 thereunder (collectively, the “conflict mineral rules”) require ExxonMobil to make certain disclosures concerning supply sources for conflict minerals — principally consisting of gold, tin, tungsten, or tantalum — that may be necessary to the manufacture or functionality of our products.  Terms and phrases used but not defined in this disclosure have the meanings given under the conflict mineral rules.

ExxonMobil manufactures or contracts to manufacture certain catalysts for which tin or tungsten are necessary to the product’s functionality.  ExxonMobil also makes use of certain tin and tungsten catalysts in our own refineries and chemical plants.  Depending on the type of catalysis process used, trace amounts of such minerals may exist in some of our finished products.

Although these tin and tungsten catalysts are used in compound form we have conducted in good faith a reasonable country of origin inquiry regarding the conflict minerals described above for 2017.  Such inquiry is reasonably designed to determine whether any of these minerals originated in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (“DRC”) or an adjoining country, or are from recycled or scrap sources.  The inquiry included obtaining written representations from each of our suppliers for these minerals to the effect that (i) the supplier has conducted its own reasonable country of origin inquiry within the meaning of the conflict mineral rules with respect to minerals sold to ExxonMobil; and (ii) based on such inquiry, the supplier has determined such minerals do not originate in the DRC or an adjoining country, or are from recycled or scrap sources, or the supplier has no reason to believe such minerals may have originated in the DRC or an adjoining country.  We have also amended each of our contracts with suppliers of conflict minerals to require the supplier to maintain procedures reasonably designed to ensure any conflict minerals sold to ExxonMobil are not sourced from the DRC or an adjoining country, and to require prompt notice to us of any breach of this covenant.

Based on these inquiries, we have no reason to believe any of the conflict minerals necessary for products we manufactured or contracted to manufacture in 2017 may have originated in the DRC or an adjoining country.

Form SD filings for prior calendar years are available through our SEC Filings page.

Related content

Global energy trade: creating a robust network

The link between global economic growth and energy demand is clear — to grow and prosper, the world will need about 25 percent more energy by 2040. By enabling energy supplies to flow smoothly between nations, a robust global trading network helps meet the need for energy efficiently and affordably.

Policy Article Jan. 14, 2019

U.S. energy policy changes could create thousands of jobs

Access to U.S. offshore oil and gas resources remains vitally important to continued U.S. energy security and economic prosperity.

Policy Article Oct. 19, 2018

Political contributions and lobbying

ExxonMobil believes that registering and voting, keeping informed on political matters, serving in civic bodies and campaigning and office-holding at local, state and national levels are important rights and responsibilities of the citizens of a democracy.

Policy Article Sept. 5, 2018

ExxonMobil’s U.S. tax expenses outweigh U.S. net income

For every dollar of net earnings in the U.S. between 2008 and 2017, ExxonMobil incurred more than $1.22 in taxes to federal, state and local governments.

Policy Article Feb. 8, 2018

A broad carbon tax coalition

For some time now, ExxonMobil has said that a uniform price of carbon applied consistently across the economy is a sensible approach to emissions reduction. Specifically, we have stated that a revenue-neutral carbon tax is one policy option being considered by policymakers that offers the best prospects for progress at the lowest economic cost to society.

Policy Blog June 21, 2017