UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D. C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

( X )   QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005

or

(   )  TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from __________to________

Commission File Number 1-2256

                                 EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION                                 

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

                            NEW JERSEY                                                             13-5409005                         

               (State or other jurisdiction of                                              (I.R.S. Employer                     

               incorporation or organization)                                        Identification Number)               

     5959 Las Colinas Boulevard, Irving, Texas                             75039-2298       

(Address of principal executive offices)                               (Zip Code)

                                         (972) 444-1000                                         

(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes  X  No    

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes  X  No    

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer's classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date.

                      Class                                                                     Outstanding as of June 30, 2005

Common stock, without par value                                                              6,305,131,575                

EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION

FORM 10-Q

FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2005

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Number

PART I.  FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1.

Financial Statements

Condensed Consolidated Statement of Income

3

Three months and six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004

Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet

4

As of June 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004

Condensed Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows

5

Six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004

Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

6-17

Item 2.

Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial

Condition and Results of Operations

18-24

Item 3.

Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk

25

Item 4.

Controls and Procedures

25

PART II.  OTHER INFORMATION

Item 1.

Legal Proceedings

25

Item 2.

Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds

26

Item 4.

Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders

27-28

Item 6.

Exhibits

28

Signature

29

Index to Exhibits

30

-2-

PART I.  FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1.  Financial Statements

EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME

(millions of dollars)

-3-

EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET

(millions of dollars)

The number of shares of common stock issued and outstanding at June 30, 2005 and

December 31, 2004 were 6,305,131,575 and 6,401,244,728, respectively.

-4-

EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS

(millions of dollars)

-5-

EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

1.

Basis of Financial Statement Preparation

These unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements should be read in the context of the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in the Corporation's 2004 Annual Report on Form 10-K.  In the opinion of the Corporation, the information furnished herein reflects all known accruals and adjustments necessary for a fair statement of the results for the periods reported herein.  All such adjustments are of a normal recurring nature.  The Corporation's exploration and production activities are accounted for under the "successful efforts" method.

2.

Accounting for Purchases and Sales of Inventory with the Same Counterparty

The Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) continued discussion of Issue No. 04-13, "Accounting for Purchases and Sales of Inventory with the Same Counterparty" at its March and June 2005 meetings.  This issue addresses the question of when it is appropriate to measure purchases and sales of inventory at fair value and record them in cost of sales and revenues and when they should be recorded as exchanges measured at the book value of the item sold.  The EITF tentatively concluded that purchases and sales of inventory with the same counterparty that are entered into in contemplation of one another should be combined and recorded as exchanges measured at the book value of the item sold.  The EITF has exposed this tentative conclusion for public comment and will discuss it further at a future meeting.

ExxonMobil records certain crude oil, natural gas, petroleum product and chemical purchases and sales of inventory entered into contemporaneously with the same counterparty as cost of sales and revenues, measured at fair value as agreed upon by a willing buyer and a willing seller.  These transactions occur under contractual arrangements that establish the agreement terms either jointly, in a single contract, or separately, in individual contracts.  This accounting treatment is consistent with long standing industry practice  (although the Corporation understands that some companies in the oil and gas industry may be accounting for these transactions as nonmonetary exchanges).  Should the EITF reach a consensus that requires these transactions to be recorded as exchanges measured at book value, the Corporation's accounts "Sales and other operating revenue" and "Crude oil and product purchases" on the Consolidated Statement of Income would be reduced by associated amounts with no impact on net income.  All operating segments would be impacted by this change, but the largest effects are in the Downstream.

The purchase/sale amounts included in revenue for 2004, 2003 and 2002 are shown below along with total "Sales and other operating revenue" to provide context.

(1) Associated costs are in "Crude oil and product purchases"

-6-

3.

Litigation and Other Contingencies

Litigation

A variety of claims have been made against ExxonMobil and certain of its consolidated subsidiaries in a number of pending lawsuits and tax disputes. The Corporation accrues an undiscounted liability for those contingencies where the incurrence of a loss is probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. The Corporation does not record liabilities when the likelihood that the liability has been incurred is probable but the amount cannot be reasonably estimated, or when the liability is believed to be only reasonably possible or remote. ExxonMobil will continue to defend itself vigorously in these matters. Based on a consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances, the Corporation does not believe the ultimate outcome of any currently pending lawsuit against ExxonMobil will have a materially adverse effect upon the Corporation’s operations or financial condition.

A number of lawsuits, including class actions, were brought in various courts against Exxon Mobil Corporation and certain of its subsidiaries relating to the accidental release of crude oil from the tanker Exxon Valdez in 1989. The vast majority of the compensatory claims have been resolved. All of the punitive damage claims were consolidated in the civil trial that began in May 1994.

In that trial, on September 24, 1996, the United States District Court for the District of Alaska entered a judgment in the amount of $5 billion in punitive damages to a class composed of all persons and entities who asserted claims for punitive damages from the Corporation as a result of the Exxon Valdez grounding. ExxonMobil appealed the judgment. On November 7, 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the punitive damage award as being excessive under the Constitution and remanded the case to the District Court for it to determine the amount of the punitive damage award consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s holding. The Ninth Circuit upheld the compensatory damage award, which has been paid. On December 6, 2002, the District Court reduced the punitive damage award from $5 billion to $4 billion. Both the plaintiffs and ExxonMobil appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit panel vacated the District Court’s $4 billion punitive damage award without argument and sent the case back for the District Court to reconsider in light of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Campbell v. State Farm. On January 28, 2004, the District Court reinstated the punitive damage award at $4.5 billion plus interest. ExxonMobil and the plaintiffs have appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit. The Corporation has posted a $5.4 billion letter of credit.

On January 29, 1997, a settlement agreement was concluded resolving all remaining matters between the Corporation and various insurers arising from the Valdez accident. Under terms of this settlement, ExxonMobil received $480 million. Final income statement recognition of this settlement continues to be deferred in view of uncertainty regarding the ultimate cost to the Corporation of the Valdez accident. Management believes that the likelihood of the judgment being upheld is remote. While it is reasonably possible that a liability may have been incurred arising from the Exxon Valdez grounding, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome or to reasonably estimate any such potential liability.

On December 19, 2000, a jury in the 15th Judicial Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama, returned a verdict against the Corporation in a dispute over royalties in the amount of $88 million in compensatory damages and $3.4 billion in punitive damages in the case of Exxon Corporation v. State of Alabama, et al. The verdict was upheld by the trial court on May 4, 2001. On December 20, 2002, the Alabama Supreme Court vacated the $3.5 billion jury verdict. The case was retried and on November 14, 2003, a state district court jury in Montgomery, Alabama, returned a verdict against Exxon Mobil Corporation. The verdict included $63.5 million in compensatory damages and $11.8 billion in punitive damages. On March 29, 2004, the district

-7-

court judge reduced the amount of punitive damages to $3.5 billion. ExxonMobil believes the judgment is not justified by the evidence, that any punitive damage award is not justified by either the facts or the law, and that the amount of the award is grossly excessive and unconstitutional. ExxonMobil has appealed the decision. Management believes that the likelihood of the judgment being upheld is remote. While it is reasonably possible that a liability may have been incurred by ExxonMobil from this dispute over royalties, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome or to reasonably estimate any such potential liability. On May 4, 2004, the Corporation posted a $4.5 billion supersedeas bond as required by Alabama law to stay execution of the judgment pending appeal. The Corporation has pledged to the issuer of the bond collateral consisting of cash and short-term, high-quality securities with an aggregate value of approximately $4.6 billion. This collateral is reported as restricted cash and cash equivalents on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. Under the terms of the pledge agreement, the Corporation is entitled to receive the income generated from the cash and securities and to make investment decisions, but is restricted from using the pledged cash and securities for any other purpose until such time the bond is canceled.

On May 22, 2001, a state court jury in New Orleans, Louisiana, returned a verdict against the Corporation and three other entities in a case brought by a landowner claiming damage to his property. The property had been leased by the landowner to a company that performed pipe cleaning and storage services for customers, including the Corporation. The jury awarded the plaintiff $56 million in compensatory damages (90 percent to be paid by the Corporation) and $1 billion in punitive damages (all to be paid by the Corporation). The damage related to the presence of naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) on the site resulting from pipe cleaning operations. The award was upheld at the trial court. ExxonMobil appealed the judgment to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which reduced the punitive damage award to $112 million. On June 15, 2005, the Corporation appealed this decision to the Louisiana Supreme Court as it continues to believe that the judgment should be substantially reduced on legal and constitutional grounds. While it is reasonably possible that a liability may have been incurred by ExxonMobil from this dispute over property damages, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome or to reasonably estimate any such potential liability.

In Allapattah v. Exxon, a jury in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida determined in January 2001 that a class of all Exxon dealers between March 1983 and August 1994 had been overcharged between 1.03 and 1.4 cents per gallon for gasoline. Exxon sold a total of 39.8 billion gallons of gasoline to its dealers during this period. The estimated value of the potential claims associated with the 39.8 billion gallons of gasoline is $494 million. Including related interest, the total is approximately $1.3 billion. On June 11, 2003, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment and on March 15, 2004, denied a petition for Rehearing En Banc. On October 12, 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court granted review of an issue raised by ExxonMobil as to whether the class in the District Court judgment should include members that individually do not satisfy the $50,000 minimum amount-in-controversy requirement in federal court. In light of the Supreme Court's decision to grant review of only part of ExxonMobil's appeal, ExxonMobil took an after-tax charge of $550 million in the third quarter of 2004 reflecting the estimated liability, including interest and after considering potential set-offs and defenses, for the claims in excess of $50,000. By a 5-to-4 decision in June 2005, the Supreme Court granted the District Court the right to hear the claims of class members that did not satisfy the $50,000 minimum amount-in-controversy requirement.  Exxon Mobil Corporation took an after-tax charge of $200 million in the second quarter of 2005.

-8-

Exxon Mobil Corporation and Saudi Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC) have been involved in litigation related to charges by SABIC for license agreements to a joint venture between the companies.  On February 22, 2005, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed a trial court's judgment in the Corporation's favor and denied SABIC's motion for reconsideration. SABIC paid $475 million to the Corporation per the Delaware Supreme Court ruling.  On July 22, 2005, SABIC appealed to the United States Supreme Court.  Final income statement recognition of this payment continues to be deferred in view of the uncertainty related to the outcome of the appeal.

Tax issues for 1986 to 1993 remain pending before the U.S. Tax Court. The ultimate resolution of these issues is not expected to have a materially adverse effect upon the Corporation’s operations or financial condition.

Other Contingencies

The Corporation and certain of its consolidated subsidiaries were contingently liable at June 30, 2005 for $3,900 million, primarily relating to guarantees for notes, loans and performance under contracts. This included $1,053 million representing guarantees of non-U.S. excise taxes and customs duties of other companies, entered into as a normal business practice, under reciprocal arrangements. Also included in this amount were guarantees by consolidated affiliates of $2,532 million, representing ExxonMobil’s share of obligations of certain equity companies.

Additionally, the Corporation and its affiliates have numerous long-term sales and purchase commitments in their various business activities, all of which are expected to be fulfilled with no adverse consequences material to the Corporation’s operations or financial condition. The Corporation's outstanding unconditional purchase obligations at June 30, 2005 were similar to those at the prior year-end period. Unconditional purchase obligations as defined by accounting standards are those long-term commitments that are noncancelable or cancelable only under certain conditions, and that third parties have used to secure financing for the facilities that will provide the contracted goods or services.

The operations and earnings of the Corporation and its affiliates throughout the world have been, and may in the future be, affected from time to time in varying degree by political developments and laws and regulations, such as forced divestiture of assets; restrictions on production, imports and exports; price controls; tax increases and retroactive tax claims; expropriation of property; cancellation of contract rights and environmental regulations. Both the likelihood of such occurrences and their overall effect upon the Corporation vary greatly from country to country and are not predictable.

-9-

4.

Nonowner Changes in Shareholders' Equity

5.

Earnings Per Share

-10-

6.

Annuity Benefits and Other Postretirement Benefits

-11-

7.

Disclosures about Segments and Related Information

-12-

8.

Condensed Consolidating Financial Information Related to Guaranteed Securities Issued by Subsidiaries

Exxon Mobil Corporation has fully and unconditionally guaranteed the 6.125% notes due 2008 ($160 million of long-term debt at June 30, 2005) of Exxon Capital Corporation and the deferred interest debentures due 2012 ($1,320 million long-term) and the debt securities due 2006-2011 ($75 million long-term and $10 million short-term) of SeaRiver Maritime Financial Holdings, Inc.  Exxon Capital Corporation and SeaRiver Maritime Financial Holdings, Inc. are 100 percent owned subsidiaries of Exxon Mobil Corporation.

The following condensed consolidating financial information is provided for Exxon Mobil Corporation, as guarantor, and for Exxon Capital Corporation and SeaRiver Maritime Financial Holdings, Inc., as issuers, as an alternative to providing separate financial statements for the issuers.  The accounts of Exxon Mobil Corporation, Exxon Capital Corporation and SeaRiver Maritime Financial Holdings, Inc. are presented utilizing the equity method of accounting for investments in subsidiaries.

-13-

-14-

-15-