EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION

ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, the Joliet, Illinois-headquartered refining and petrochemical subsidiary of Exxon Mobil Corp., carries nine EPA-regulated facilities, ten quarters-with-noncompliance over the trailing 24 months, and an allocated penalty total of $2.41 million derived from five-year aggregate fines prorated to the 24-month window [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. The numbers alone tell only part of the story. The largest single enforcement event tied to the Joliet refinery is a Clean Air Act consent-decree amendment under which ExxonMobil agreed to pay $1,515,463 — $1,086,640 federal and $428,823 to the State of Illinois — to resolve continuous-emissions violations of the 2005 consent decree [source: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/us-government-and-state-illinois-announce-agreement-exxonmobil-s-joliet-refinery-reduce-air] [source: https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/us-government-and-state-illinois-announce-agreement-exxonmobils-joliet-refinery-reduce]. That penalty did not arrive in isolation.

The broader enforcement record includes a 2017 multi-facility Clean Air Act settlement covering eight Texas and Louisiana petrochemical plants, addressing industrial-flare operation and monitoring across the Gulf Coast complex [source: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/exxon-mobil-corporationexxonmobil-oil-corporation-clean-air-act-settlement]. A separate Clean Water Act and Oil Pollution Act consent decree, filed in the Southern District of Texas as Case 4:17-cv-03302 and entered June 6, 2018, extends compliance covenants to the Beaumont, Joliet, and Torrance refineries simultaneously [source: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-06/documents/exxonmobilcorp-cd.pdf]. ExxonMobil Oil Corporation is a non-reporting subsidiary. Equity-analyst coverage in the past 30 days centers on parent Exxon Mobil Corp. (NYSE:XOM) Q1 2026 earnings, which fell on depressed January–February crude prices before a February 28 price spike following U.S. and Israeli action against Iran [source: https://cnbc.com/2026/05/01/exxon-xom-chevron-cvx-q1-2026-earnings.html] [source: https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/01/business/big-oil-earnings]. One data-quality caveat warrants explicit attention: the ECHO-reported EJ index average of 0.0 reflects missing and unpopulated EJSCREEN fields in the exporter cut rather than a measured absence of environmental-justice exposure — a distinction flagged in detail below [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip].

ExxonMobil Oil Corporation's federal compliance file is shaped by two long-running consent decrees and a cluster of facility-level quarterly noncompliance markers that span multiple programs and geographies. ECHO's exporter snapshot dated May 4, 2026 lists nine facility IDs under the ExxonMobil Oil Corporation registrant name, ten quarters-with-noncompliance bounded at eight per facility under the derivation rule, and a prorated 24-month penalty figure of $2,413,980.40 derived from the five-year aggregate scaled by 24/60 [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. No active permits are flagged in the exporter row, with the latest permit action dated December 3, 2025 [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip].

The 24-month narrative begins in June 2024, when ExxonMobil Oil Corporation filed before the Illinois Pollution Control Board under Docket AS 2024-001, seeking an adjusted standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 216.361, 216.103, and 216.104 — the state air-rule sections governing the Joliet refinery's emissions — in response to an Illinois EPA recommendation [source: https://pcb.illinois.gov/documents/dsweb/Get/Version-106276/AS%2024-1%20ExxonMobil_s%20Response%20to%20IEPA%20Recommendation%20and%20Motion%20to%20Incorporate%206-24-24.pdf]. That petition sits in parallel with the federal consent-decree amendment announced by DOJ and EPA, which requires the $1,515,463 penalty and capital upgrades at Joliet to address violations of the 2005 Clean Air Act consent decree [source: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/us-government-and-state-illinois-announce-agreement-exxonmobil-s-joliet-refinery-reduce-air]. Two separate proceedings — one federal, one state — thus run concurrently at the same Illinois facility. The underlying 2017 multi-facility flare settlement remains the structural backbone of ongoing monitoring obligations across the ExxonMobil Oil Corporation Gulf Coast complex [source: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/exxon-mobil-corporationexxonmobil-oil-corporation-clean-air-act-settlement].

Water-media enforcement is anchored by the Clean Water Act and Oil Pollution Act consent decree in United States of America, et al. v. ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, with the filed decree posted to EPA's enforcement archive and referencing Beaumont, Joliet, and Torrance refinery obligations [source: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/consent-decree-united-states-america-et-al-v-exxonmobil-oil-corporation] [source: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/documents/exxonmobil-cd.pdf]. A separate historical Clean Water Act settlement involving the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game resolved spill-related allegations against the same corporate entity [source: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/exxonmobil-oil-corporation-clean-water-act-settlement]. Title V petition activity in Region 5 covering Illinois facilities continued into 2023, with EPA orders denying petitions for objection on neighboring refinery permits illustrating the regulatory posture of the surrounding permitting universe [source: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-05]. Taken together, the record shows recurring flare-operation and emissions-monitoring findings layered on top of multi-decade consent-decree compliance obligations — not isolated, one-off events.

Action 1 — Joliet Refinery CAA consent-decree amendment (announced by DOJ and EPA, tied to violations of the 2005 consent decree): ExxonMobil agreed to pay $1,515,463 in civil penalties, split $1,086,640 federal and $428,823 to Illinois, plus capital upgrades to reduce continuous emissions at the Joliet, Illinois refinery [source: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/us-government-and-state-illinois-announce-agreement-exxonmobil-s-joliet-refinery-reduce-air] [source: https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/us-government-and-state-illinois-announce-agreement-exxonmobils-joliet-refinery-reduce]. Program: Clean Air Act. The amendment revisits obligations first codified in October 2005 and extends them with new capital-improvement requirements.

Action 2 — Multi-facility CAA flare settlement (October 31, 2017): EPA, DOJ, and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality resolved allegations that ExxonMobil did not properly operate and monitor industrial flares at eight petrochemical manufacturing facilities in Texas and Louisiana, with injunctive relief projected to eliminate thousands of tons of air pollution [source: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/exxon-mobil-corporationexxonmobil-oil-corporation-clean-air-act-settlement]. Program: Clean Air Act. The settlement's monitoring and reporting obligations extend into the current 24-month window, meaning the Gulf Coast complex remains under active compliance scrutiny today.

Action 3 — CWA/OPA consent decree, Case 4:17-cv-03302 (S.D. Tex., entered June 6, 2018): ExxonMobil Corp. and ExxonMobil Oil Corp. resolved Clean Water Act and Oil Pollution Act claims with compliance covenants explicitly covering the Beaumont, Joliet, and Torrance refineries [source: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-06/documents/exxonmobilcorp-cd.pdf] [source: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/consent-decree-united-states-america-et-al-v-exxonmobil-oil-corporation]. Three geographically dispersed refineries — spanning Illinois, Texas, and California — fall under a single federal court order.

Action 4 — Historical CWA settlement with USFWS and California Department of Fish and Game: ExxonMobil Oil Corporation payment obligations tied to spill-event natural-resource damages [source: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/exxonmobil-oil-corporation-clean-water-act-settlement]. Program: Clean Water Act. This settlement documents the California operational footprint's water-media liability lineage.

Action 5 — Illinois Pollution Control Board Docket AS 2024-001 (filed 2024, response June 24, 2024): ExxonMobil Oil Corporation filed a petition for an adjusted standard from Illinois air rules at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 216.361, 216.103, and 216.104, in response to an Illinois EPA recommendation. The matter remains pending before the Board and carries no monetary penalty; it is a state-level air-permit adjudication that runs concurrently with the federal consent-decree amendment at the same Joliet site [source: https://pcb.illinois.gov/documents/dsweb/Get/Version-106276/AS%2024-1%20ExxonMobil_s%20Response%20to%20IEPA%20Recommendation%20and%20Motion%20to%20Incorporate%206-24-24.pdf].

Action 6 — EPA AED/MSEB-6057 fuels settlement (historical, Mobil Oil Corporation successor liability): A settlement agreement under Section 211(k) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7545(k), entered with ExxonMobil Oil Corporation following a November 29, 2001 Notice of Violation [source: https://19january2021snapshot.epa.gov/sites/static/files/2014-03/documents/sa-fuels-exxonmobil-111802.pdf]. Included here for corporate-lineage context; the action falls outside the 24-month window.

Aggregate allocation: ECHO's derivation yields $2,413,980.40 in penalty exposure attributable to the trailing 24 months, computed as the five-year total multiplied by 24/60 [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip].

Joliet Refinery (Joliet, IL) — the registrant's headquarters facility and the single largest driver of recent enforcement activity. The Joliet plant is the subject of the federal and state CAA consent-decree amendment carrying the $1,515,463 penalty and capital-upgrade obligations, and simultaneously the subject of the pending Illinois Pollution Control Board adjusted-standard petition AS 2024-001 [source: https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/us-government-and-state-illinois-announce-agreement-exxonmobils-joliet-refinery-reduce] [source: https://pcb.illinois.gov/documents/dsweb/Get/Version-106276/AS%2024-1%20ExxonMobil_s%20Response%20to%20IEPA%20Recommendation%20and%20Motion%20to%20Incorporate%206-24-24.pdf]. The October 13, 2005 EPA news release documents the original Joliet consent-decree violations that the current amendment revisits, establishing a compliance timeline spanning more than two decades at this single Illinois facility [source: https://www.epa.gov/archive/epapages/newsroom_archive/newsreleases/a5d3eb0cb285dbba852570bd005f70cd.html].

Beaumont Refinery (Beaumont, TX) — explicitly named in the CWA/OPA consent decree in Case 4:17-cv-03302, with refinery-specific compliance covenants for wastewater and oil-handling operations [source: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-06/documents/exxonmobil-cd.pdf]. Beaumont is also among the Texas and Louisiana petrochemical facilities covered by the 2017 flare settlement, meaning the site carries overlapping Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act compliance obligations from two separate federal enforcement instruments [source: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/exxon-mobil-corporationexxonmobil-oil-corporation-clean-air-act-settlement].

Torrance Refinery (Torrance, CA) — named in the CWA/OPA consent decree alongside Beaumont and Joliet as a covered site for compliance provisions, including cost-allocation language for decree-related expenditures [source: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/documents/exxonmobil-cd.pdf]. California historical operations also underpin the USFWS and California Department of Fish and Game spill settlement, extending the facility's documented liability record into natural-resource damages [source: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/exxonmobil-oil-corporation-clean-water-act-settlement].

Baytown and Baton Rouge petrochemical complex (TX/LA) — the 2017 multi-facility CAA settlement covers eight petrochemical manufacturing facilities in Texas and Louisiana, with flare-operation and monitoring requirements projected by EPA to eliminate thousands of tons of air pollution. EPA identifies the Gulf Coast complex as the highest-volume compliance surface in the ExxonMobil Oil Corporation portfolio [source: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/exxon-mobil-corporationexxonmobil-oil-corporation-clean-air-act-settlement]. Active monitoring obligations from that 2017 settlement remain in force today.

Remaining ECHO-listed facilities — four additional facility IDs (110064635113, 110055188586, 110017213727, and 110018322974 among the nine listed) appear in the May 4, 2026 ECHO exporter snapshot under the ExxonMobil Oil Corporation registrant, with the aggregate ten quarters-with-noncompliance distributed across the portfolio. The exporter cut does not populate EJSCREEN index fields for these rows, producing the ej_index_avg of 0.0 reported in the headline figures — a data-absence artifact, not a finding of low environmental-justice exposure [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip].

Flare-related air emissions — the 2017 CAA settlement centers on improper flare operation and monitoring at eight petrochemical plants. EPA identifies the resulting releases as volatile organic compounds, hazardous air pollutants, and combustion byproducts discharged during upsets or inefficient combustion events [source: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/exxon-mobil-corporationexxonmobil-oil-corporation-clean-air-act-settlement]. EPA's announcement frames the injunctive relief in terms of thousands of tons of air pollution eliminated, indicating refinery-scale loadings of criteria and hazardous pollutants reaching Gulf Coast fence-line communities. Those are not abstract quantities. They represent measurable ground-level concentrations in populated census tracts adjacent to the Baytown and Baton Rouge complexes.

Refinery-wide criteria pollutants — sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds — at Joliet: the DOJ and EPA announcement for the Joliet consent-decree amendment describes continuous-emissions reductions as the compliance objective, consistent with the original 2005 consent-decree framework that targeted refinery-sector criteria pollutants [source: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/us-government-and-state-illinois-announce-agreement-exxonmobil-s-joliet-refinery-reduce-air] [source: https://www.epa.gov/archive/epapages/newsroom_archive/newsreleases/a5d3eb0cb285dbba852570bd005f70cd.html]. Exposure pathways for Will County, Illinois fence-line populations include inhalation of ground-level SO2 and NOx plumes and secondary ozone formation downwind of the refinery.

Oil and petroleum-product releases to surface water — the CWA/OPA consent decree addresses discharge events and oil-spill prevention across refinery operations, with natural-resource damages to migratory birds and aquatic species documented in the parallel USFWS settlement [source: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/consent-decree-united-states-america-et-al-v-exxonmobil-oil-corporation] [source: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/exxonmobil-oil-corporation-clean-water-act-settlement]. The ECHO exporter row does not itemize TRI chemicals for the current 24-month window; the top_pollutants field is empty in the May 4, 2026 cut [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. The environmental-justice dimension is real but incompletely captured by available data: flare and refinery emissions in Joliet, Beaumont, Baytown, and Baton Rouge overlay census tracts with documented proximity-exposure concerns, yet the exporter snapshot's EJSCREEN fields are unpopulated for these facility IDs. The 0.0 average is a data-absence artifact and not a measured low-exposure finding [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip].

The research bundle returned no populated NAICS 424710 (petroleum bulk stations and terminals) peer benchmark rows, so a quantitative peer table is not constructable from the provided data [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. Qualitatively, the Joliet-headquartered registrant's profile — nine facilities, ten quarters-with-noncompliance, $2.41 million in 24-month allocated penalties, and an active CAA consent-decree amendment — sits inside the parent Exxon Mobil Corp. enforcement footprint that also spans the 2017 Gulf Coast flare settlement and the 4:17-cv-03302 CWA/OPA decree [source: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/exxon-mobil-corporationexxonmobil-oil-corporation-clean-air-act-settlement] [source: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-06/documents/exxonmobilcorp-cd.pdf]. Direct peer comparability is limited because NAICS 424710 captures bulk stations and terminals while the registrant's material enforcement activity occurs at integrated refineries typically coded to NAICS 324110.

No SEC 10-K or 10-Q filings were returned for ExxonMobil Oil Corporation in the research bundle — the subsidiary is non-reporting and does not file a standalone Item 1A, with the CIK field returned as N/A [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. Forward environmental and geopolitical exposure for the parent entity surfaces through Q1 2026 earnings disclosures. Exxon Mobil Corp. (NYSE:XOM) reported falling profits tied to depressed January and February crude prices, followed by a February 28 price spike following U.S. and Israeli action against Iran [source: https://cnbc.com/2026/05/01/exxon-xom-chevron-cvx-q1-2026-earnings.html] [source: https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/01/business/big-oil-earnings]. Ongoing LNG capacity expansion and synthetic-graphite production investments add further dimensions to the parent's forward exposure profile [source: https://plasticstoday.com/business/exxonmobil-advances-materials-innovation-amid-global-energy-disruption]. None of those parent-level disclosures address the subsidiary's active consent-decree obligations or the pending AS 2024-001 adjudication.