What The Chemours Company told the SEC could break it.

Chemours' Titanium Technologies (TiO2 pigment) segment depends on commodity inputs: the primary raw materials are titanium-bearing ores (sourced globally, primarily from Australia, Africa and Eastern Europe), chlorine, calcined petroleum coke and energy — with energy alone ~10% of production cost. Higher raw-material costs drove 2025 COGS up ~6% to $4.9 billion. The company runs a diversified procurement strategy (multiple suppliers/ore grades, long/medium-term contracts plus spot) to limit single-supplier exposure, so this is principally a commodity-price exposure (ore, chlorine, coke, energy) rather than a sole-source risk. A genuine feedstock-commodity dependence tying margins to titanium-ore and energy markets.

“The primary raw materials used in the manufacture of TiO 2 pigment are titanium-bearing ores, chlorine, calcined petroleum coke, and energy.”

Chemours carries large, ongoing PFAS-related environmental liability inherited from the DuPont spin-off. It maintains accruals for PFOA matters under the Leach Settlement and for EID's obligations to the U.S. EPA and voluntary commitments to the New Jersey DEP (surveying, sampling and treating drinking water around certain sites), and it shares PFAS legal/remediation costs with DuPont and Corteva under a Memorandum of Understanding — incurring approximately $147M and $109M of Qualified Spend in 2025 and 2024 (recovering $61M and $47M from DuPont/Corteva). With GenX, AFFF and broader PFAS litigation and tightening PFAS regulation, the ultimate liability is uncertain and potentially material. A high-severity, defining litigation/environmental exposure for the company.

“Chemours maintained an accrual of $ 39 and $ 40 , respectively, related to PFOA matters under the Leach Settlement”

As a global chemicals producer that ships TiO2, refrigerants and fluoropolymers across borders, Chemours is exposed to trade policy: it notes the U.S. continues to maintain historically elevated global reciprocal tariffs (including duties on imports from India), that China tariff levels remain in flux (suspension of certain heightened duties extended into late 2026), and that trading partners such as the EU could impose countermeasures. Separately, Chinese TiO2 producers have expanded readily available chloride-process capacity, raising the risk that customers substitute toward lower-cost Chinese pigment. Tariff escalation and Chinese capacity together pressure both input costs and competitive pricing. A specific trade-policy/competitive exposure.

“the United States continues to maintain historically elevated global reciprocal tariffs, including duties applied to imports from India.”