Exxon doesn't seem to be incorporating all available information:
At the company’s planned annual meeting on Wednesday in Dallas, shareholders will vote on a resolution to prod Exxon Mobil to disclose the risks of climate change to its business.
Such resolutions have been floated before, and they typically do not pass. But there is a growing chorus of investors, many of them large institutional shareholders, who say they are worried that Exxon Mobil, the largest publicly traded energy company in the world, is not adequately preparing for tighter times if countries start acting on the pledges they made last December as part of the Paris climate change accord.
Exxon Mobil, for example, projects that global demand for oil will keep growing — by just over 13 percent from today, to 109 million barrels of oil a day by 2040.
But the International Energy Agency’s projections include one situation where demand could drop by 22 percent, to 74 million barrels a day by 2040, if measures are put in place to keep global warming at levels that, while still dangerous, could avoid the most devastating consequences.
The shareholder resolution calls for Exxon Mobil to publish an annual assessment of impacts of various climate change policies, including ones that would lead to the steep drops foreseen in the most severe energy agency’s forecast. Another resolution calls for the company to give shareholders a bigger say over governance.
Exxon Mobil previously tried to block the climate change resolution, but the Securities and Exchange Commission ruled in March that shareholders must be allowed to vote.
Here it is from 2014 (PDF):
Our Outlook for Energy long-term supply and demand forecast underpins our strategy and investment plans. With population growth, rising economic prosperity, and increasing trade and technology, we project global energy demand to grow 35 percent between 2010 and 2040.
At the least there should be an asymmetric confidence interval around their demand forecast. It seems odd that there isn't one given their attention to the potential impact of climate policy in this passage from a report posted on their website with no title page:
We also address the potential for future climate-related controls, including the potential for restriction on emissions, through the use of a proxy cost of carbon. This proxy cost of carbon is embedded in our current Outlook for Energy, and has been a feature of the report for several years. The proxy cost seeks to reflect all types of actions and policies that governments may take over the Outlook period relating to the exploration, development, production, transportation or use of carbon-based fuels. Our proxy cost, which in some areas may approach $80/ton over the Outlook period, is not a suggestion that governments should apply specific taxes. It is also not the same as a “social cost of carbon,” which we believe involves countless more assumptions and subjective speculation on future climate impacts. It is simply our effort to quantify what we believe government policies over the Outlook period could cost to our investment opportunities. Perhaps most importantly, we require that all our business segments include, where appropriate, GHG costs in their economics when seeking funding for capital investments. We require that investment proposals reflect the climate-related policy decisions we anticipate governments making during the Outlook period and therefore incorporate them as a factor in our specific investment decisions.
When governments are considering policy options, ExxonMobil advocates an approach that ensures a uniform and predictable cost of carbon; allows market prices to drive solutions; maximizes transparency to stakeholders; reduces administrative complexity; promotes global participation; and is easily adjusted to future developments in climate science and policy impacts. We continue to believe a revenue-neutral carbon tax is better able to accommodate these key criteria than alternatives such as cap-and-trade.
Our views are based on our many years of successful energy experience worldwide and are similar to long-term energy demand forecasts of the International Energy Agency. As discussed previously, we see population, GDP and energy needs increasing for the world over the Outlook period, and that all economically viable energy sources will be required to meet these growing needs. We believe that governments will carefully balance the risk of climate change against other pressing social needs over the Outlook period, including the need for accessible, reliable and affordable energy, and that an artificial capping of carbon-based fuels to levels in the “low carbon scenario” is highly unlikely.
Funny, their "proxy cost" of carbon is not a social cost of carbon.