| COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES | 9 Months Ended |
| Sep. 30, 2014 |
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | ' |
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block] | ' |
| COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES |
| Dow Corning Credit Facility |
| The Company is a 50 percent shareholder in Dow Corning Corporation ("Dow Corning"). On June 1, 2004, the Company agreed to provide a ten-year credit facility to Dow Corning as part of Dow Corning's Joint Plan of Reorganization. The aggregate amount available under the credit facility was originally $300 million, of which the Company's share was $150 million. No advances were issued under the credit facility and it expired on June 1, 2014. |
|
| Environmental Matters |
| Accruals for environmental matters are recorded when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated, based on current law and existing technologies. At September 30, 2014, the Company had accrued obligations of $724 million for probable environmental remediation and restoration costs, including $77 million for the remediation of Superfund sites. This is management’s best estimate of the costs for remediation and restoration with respect to environmental matters for which the Company has accrued liabilities, although it is reasonably possible that the ultimate cost with respect to these particular matters could range up to approximately two and a half times that amount. Consequently, it is reasonably possible that environmental remediation and restoration costs in excess of amounts accrued could have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. It is the opinion of the Company’s management, however, that the possibility is remote that costs in excess of the range disclosed will have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Inherent uncertainties exist in these estimates primarily due to unknown conditions, changing governmental regulations and legal standards regarding liability, and emerging remediation technologies for handling site remediation and restoration. At December 31, 2013, the Company had accrued obligations of $722 million for probable environmental remediation and restoration costs, including $73 million for the remediation of Superfund sites. |
|
| Midland Off-Site Environmental Matters |
| On June 12, 2003, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality ("MDEQ") issued a Hazardous Waste Operating License (the "License") to the Company’s Midland, Michigan, manufacturing site (the "Midland site"), which included provisions requiring the Company to conduct an investigation to determine the nature and extent of off-site contamination in the City of Midland soils, the Tittabawassee River and Saginaw River sediment and floodplain soils, and the Saginaw Bay, and, if necessary, undertake remedial action. |
|
| City of Midland |
| On March 6, 2012, the Company submitted an Interim Response Activity Plan Designed to Meet Criteria ("Work Plan") to the MDEQ that involved the sampling of soil at residential properties near the Midland site for the presence of dioxins to determine where clean-up may be required and then conducting remediation for properties that sample above the remediation criteria. The MDEQ approved the Work Plan on June 1, 2012 and implementation of the Work Plan began on June 4, 2012. During 2012 and 2013, the Company submitted and had approved by the MDEQ, amendments to the Work Plan to sample properties in 2012 and 2013 that were originally scheduled for sampling in 2014 through 2017. On March 14, 2014, the Company submitted a plan for properties to be sampled during 2014 ("2014 Plan"), as required by the approved Work Plan. On June 12, 2014, the Company submitted a modified plan based on MDEQ comments. The 2014 Plan was approved on June 27, 2014. As of September 30, 2014, remediation has been completed on 128 of the 132 properties that tested above the remediation criteria. |
|
| Tittabawassee and Saginaw Rivers, Saginaw Bay |
| The Company, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the State of Michigan ("State") entered into an administrative order on consent (“AOC”), effective January 21, 2010, that requires the Company to conduct a remedial investigation, a feasibility study and a remedial design for the Tittabawassee River, the Saginaw River and the Saginaw Bay, and pay the oversight costs of the EPA and the State under the authority of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”). These actions, to be conducted under the lead oversight of the EPA, will build upon the investigative work completed under the State Resource Conservation Recovery Act (“RCRA”) program from 2005 through 2009. The Tittabawassee River, beginning at the Midland Site and extending down to the first six miles of the Saginaw River, are designated as the first Operable Unit for purposes of conducting the remedial investigation, feasibility study and remedial design work. This work will be performed in a largely upriver to downriver sequence for eight geographic segments of the Tittabawassee and upper Saginaw Rivers. In the first quarter of 2012, the EPA requested the Company address the Tittabawasee River floodplain as an additional segment. In August 2014, the EPA proposed for public comment the techniques that can be used to remedy the floodplain, including proposed site specific clean criteria. The remainder of the Saginaw River and the Saginaw Bay are designated as a second Operable Unit and the work associated with that unit may also be geographically segmented. The AOC does not obligate the Company to perform removal or remedial action; that action can only be required by a separate order. The Company and the EPA will be negotiating orders separate from the AOC that will obligate the Company to perform remedial actions under the scope of work of the AOC. The Company and the EPA have entered into three separate orders to perform limited remedial actions to implement early actions. In addition, the Company and the EPA have entered into two separate orders to address remedial actions in two of the nine geographic segments in the first Operable Unit. |
|
| Alternative Dispute Resolution Process |
| The Company, the EPA, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the natural resource damage trustees (which include the Michigan Office of the Attorney General, the MDEQ, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Saginaw-Chippewa tribe) have been engaged in negotiations to seek to resolve potential governmental claims against the Company related to historical off-site contamination associated with the City of Midland, the Tittabawassee and Saginaw Rivers and the Saginaw Bay. The Company and the governmental parties started meeting in the fall of 2005 and entered into a Confidentiality Agreement in December 2005. The Company continues to conduct negotiations under the Federal Alternative Dispute Resolution Act with all of the governmental parties, except the EPA which withdrew from the alternative dispute resolution process on September 12, 2007. |
|
| On September 28, 2007, the Company and the natural resource damage trustees entered into a Funding and Participation Agreement that addressed the Company’s payment of past costs incurred by the natural resource damage trustees, payment of the costs of a trustee coordinator and a process to review additional cooperative studies that the Company might agree to fund or conduct with the natural resource damage trustees. On March 18, 2008, the Company and the natural resource damage trustees entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") to provide a mechanism for the Company to fund cooperative studies related to the assessment of natural resource damages. This MOU was amended and funding of cooperative studies was extended until March 2014. All cooperative studies have been completed. On April 7, 2008, the natural resource damage trustees released their "Natural Resource Damage Assessment Plan for the Tittabawassee River System Assessment Area." |
|
| At September 30, 2014, the accrual for these off-site matters was $55 million (included in the total accrued obligation of $724 million at September 30, 2014). At December 31, 2013, the Company had an accrual for these off-site matters of $47 million (included in the total accrued obligation of $722 million at December 31, 2013). |
|
| Environmental Matters Summary |
| It is the opinion of the Company's management that the possibility is remote that costs in excess of those disclosed will have a material impact on the Company's results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. |
|
| Litigation |
| DBCP Matters |
| Numerous lawsuits have been brought against the Company and other chemical companies, both inside and outside of the United States, alleging that the manufacture, distribution or use of pesticides containing dibromochloropropane (“DBCP”) has caused personal injury and property damage, including contamination of groundwater. It is the opinion of the Company’s management that the possibility is remote that the resolution of such lawsuits will have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements. |
|
| Asbestos-Related Matters of Union Carbide Corporation |
| Introduction |
| Union Carbide Corporation (“Union Carbide”), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, is and has been involved in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the past three decades. These suits principally allege personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products and frequently seek both actual and punitive damages. The alleged claims primarily relate to products that Union Carbide sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located on Union Carbide’s premises, and Union Carbide’s responsibility for asbestos suits filed against a former Union Carbide subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc. (“Amchem”). In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable loss as a result of such exposure, or that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure to Union Carbide’s products. |
|
| Union Carbide expects more asbestos-related suits to be filed against Union Carbide and Amchem in the future, and will aggressively defend or reasonably resolve, as appropriate, both pending and future claims. |
|
| Estimating the Liability |
| Based on a study completed by Analysis, Research & Planning Corporation (“ARPC”) in January 2003, Union Carbide increased its December 31, 2002 asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims for the 15-year period ending in 2017 to $2.2 billion, excluding future defense and processing costs. Since then, Union Carbide has compared current asbestos claim and resolution activity to the results of the most recent ARPC study at each balance sheet date to determine whether the accrual continues to be appropriate. In addition, Union Carbide has requested ARPC to review Union Carbide’s historical asbestos claim and resolution activity each year since 2004 to determine the appropriateness of updating the most recent ARPC study. |
|
| In October 2012, Union Carbide requested ARPC to review its historical asbestos claim and resolution activity and determine the appropriateness of updating its then most recent study completed in December 2010. In response to that request, ARPC reviewed and analyzed data through September 30, 2012. In December 2012, based upon ARPC's December 2012 study and Union Carbide's own review of the asbestos claim and resolution activity for 2012, it was determined that no adjustment to the accrual was required at December 31, 2012. Union Carbide's asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims was $602 million at December 31, 2012. |
|
| In October 2013, Union Carbide requested ARPC to review its historical asbestos claim and resolution activity and determine the appropriateness of updating its December 2012 study. In response to that request, ARPC reviewed and analyzed data through September 30, 2013. In December 2013, ARPC stated that an update of its study would not provide a more likely estimate of future events than the estimate reflected in its December 2012 study and, therefore, the estimate in that study remained applicable. Based on Union Carbide's own review of the asbestos claim and resolution activity and ARPC's response, Union Carbide determined that no change to the accrual was required. At December 31, 2013, the asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims was $501 million and approximately 19 percent of the recorded liability related to pending claims and approximately 81 percent related to future claims. |
|
| Based on Union Carbide’s review of 2014 activity, Union Carbide determined that no adjustment to the accrual was required at September 30, 2014. Union Carbide’s asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims was $462 million at September 30, 2014. Approximately 24 percent of the recorded liability related to pending claims and approximately 76 percent related to future claims. |
|
| Insurance Receivables |
| At December 31, 2002, Union Carbide increased the receivable for insurance recoveries related to its asbestos liability to $1.35 billion, substantially exhausting its asbestos product liability coverage. The insurance receivable related to the asbestos liability was determined by Union Carbide after a thorough review of applicable insurance policies and the 1985 Wellington Agreement, to which Union Carbide and many of its liability insurers are signatory parties, as well as other insurance settlements, with due consideration given to applicable deductibles, retentions and policy limits, and taking into account the solvency and historical payment experience of various insurance carriers. The Wellington Agreement and other agreements with insurers are designed to facilitate an orderly resolution and collection of Union Carbide’s insurance policies and to resolve issues that the insurance carriers may raise. |
|
| In September 2003, Union Carbide filed a comprehensive insurance coverage case, now proceeding in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, seeking to confirm its rights to insurance for various asbestos claims and to facilitate an orderly and timely collection of insurance proceeds (the “Insurance Litigation”). The Insurance Litigation was filed against insurers that are not signatories to the Wellington Agreement and/or do not otherwise have agreements in place with Union Carbide regarding their asbestos-related insurance coverage, in order to facilitate an orderly resolution and collection of such insurance policies and to resolve issues that the insurance carriers may raise. Since the filing of the case, Union Carbide has reached settlements with several of the carriers involved in the Insurance Litigation and continues to pursue a settlement with the remaining carrier. Union Carbide’s receivable for insurance recoveries related to its asbestos liability was $23 million at September 30, 2014 and $25 million at December 31, 2013. |
|
| In addition to the receivable for insurance recoveries related to its asbestos liability, Union Carbide had receivables for defense and resolution costs submitted to insurance carriers that have settlement agreements in place regarding their asbestos-related insurance coverage. The following table summarizes Union Carbide’s receivables related to its asbestos-related liability: |
|
| | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| Receivables for Asbestos-Related Costs | Sep 30, | | | Dec 31, | | | |
| In millions | 2014 | 2013 | | |
| Receivables for defense and resolution costs – carriers with settlement agreements | $ | 61 | | | $ | 66 | | | |
| |
| Receivables for insurance recoveries – carriers without settlement agreements | 23 | | | 25 | | | |
| |
| Total | $ | 84 | | | $ | 91 | | | |
| |
|
| Union Carbide expenses defense costs as incurred. The pretax impact for defense and resolution costs was $32 million in the third quarter of 2014 ($26 million in the third quarter of 2013) and $86 million in the first nine months of 2014 ($77 million in the first nine months of 2013) and was reflected in "Cost of sales" in the consolidated statements of income. |
| After a review of its insurance policies, with due consideration given to applicable deductibles, retentions and policy limits, after taking into account the solvency and historical payment experience of various insurance carriers; existing insurance settlements; and the advice of outside counsel with respect to the applicable insurance coverage law relating to the terms and conditions of its insurance policies, Union Carbide continues to believe that its recorded receivable for insurance recoveries from all insurance carriers is probable of collection. |
|
| Summary |
| The amounts recorded by Union Carbide for the asbestos-related liability and related insurance receivable described above were based upon current, known facts. However, future events, such as the number of new claims to be filed and/or received each year, the average cost of disposing of each such claim, coverage issues among insurers, and the continuing solvency of various insurance companies, as well as the numerous uncertainties surrounding asbestos litigation in the United States, could cause the actual costs and insurance recoveries for Union Carbide to be higher or lower than those projected or those recorded. |
|
| Because of the uncertainties described above, Union Carbide’s management cannot estimate the full range of the cost of resolving pending and future asbestos-related claims facing Union Carbide and Amchem. Union Carbide’s management believes that it is reasonably possible that the cost of disposing of Union Carbide’s asbestos-related claims, including future defense costs, could have a material impact on Union Carbide’s results of operations and cash flows for a particular period and on the consolidated financial position of Union Carbide. |
|
| It is the opinion of Dow’s management that it is reasonably possible that the cost of Union Carbide disposing of its asbestos-related claims, including future defense costs, could have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations and cash flows for a particular period and on the consolidated financial position of the Company. |
|
| Synthetic Rubber Industry Matters |
| In 2003, the U.S., Canadian and European competition authorities initiated separate investigations into alleged anticompetitive behavior by certain participants in the synthetic rubber industry. Certain subsidiaries of the Company (as to the investigation in Europe) responded to requests for documents and otherwise cooperated in the investigations. |
|
| On June 10, 2005, the Company received a Statement of Objections from the European Commission (the “EC”) stating that it believed that the Company and certain subsidiaries of the Company (the “Dow Entities”), together with other participants in the synthetic rubber industry, engaged in conduct in violation of European competition laws with respect to the butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber businesses. In connection therewith, on November 29, 2006, the EC issued its decision alleging infringement of Article 81 of the Treaty of Rome and imposed a fine of Euro 64.575 million (approximately $85 million at that time) on the Dow Entities; several other companies were also named and fined. As a result, the Company recognized a loss contingency of $85 million related to the fine in the fourth quarter of 2006. The Company appealed the EC’s decision and a hearing was held before the Court of First Instance on October 13, 2009. On July 13, 2011, the General Court issued a decision that partly affirmed the EC's decision with regard to the amount of the fine and the liability of the parent company, but rejected the EC's decision regarding the length of the conspiracy and determined that it was of a shorter duration. The Dow Entities filed an appeal of this decision to the Court of Justice of the European Union. This appeal was denied on July 18, 2013. The Dow Entities paid the fine, including accrued interest, on August 12, 2013. This proceeding is now considered resolved. Subsequent to the imposition of the fine in 2006, the Company and/or certain subsidiaries of the Company became named parties in various related U.S., United Kingdom and Italian civil actions. The U.S. matter was settled in March 2010 and the United Kingdom and Italian matters were settled in May 2014. Each of the settlement agreements was confidential and had an immaterial impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements. |
|
| Urethane Matters |
| On February 16, 2006, the Company, among others, received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") as part of a previously announced antitrust investigation of manufacturers of polyurethane chemicals, including methylene diphenyl diisocyanate, toluene diisocyanate, polyether polyols and system house products. The Company cooperated with the DOJ and, following an extensive investigation, on December 10, 2007, the Company received notice from the DOJ that it had closed its investigation of potential antitrust violations involving these products without indictments or pleas. |
| In 2005, the Company, among others, was named as a defendant in multiple civil class action lawsuits alleging a conspiracy to fix the price of various urethane chemical products, namely the products that were the subject of the above described DOJ antitrust investigation. These lawsuits were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (the "District Court") or have been tolled. On July 29, 2008, the District Court certified a class of purchasers of the products for the six-year period from 1999 through 2004. Shortly thereafter, a series of “opt-out” cases were filed by a number of large volume purchasers; these cases are substantively identical to the class action lawsuit, but expanded the time period to include 1994 through 1998. In January 2013, the class action lawsuit went to trial in the District Court with the Company as the sole remaining defendant, the other defendants having previously settled. On February 20, 2013, the jury in the matter returned a damages verdict of approximately $400 million against the Company, which ultimately was trebled by the District Court under applicable antitrust laws - less offsets from other settling defendants - resulting in a judgment entered in July 2013 in the amount of $1.06 billion. The Company appealed this judgment to the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ("Tenth Circuit" or "Court of Appeals"), which heard oral arguments on the matter on May 14, 2014. On September 29, 2014, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion affirming the District Court judgment. On October 14, 2014, the Company filed a petition for Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc (collectively the "Petition") with the Court of Appeals. In the Petition, Dow requests that the Tenth Circuit’s September 29th decision be reheard to correct fundamental errors. Specifically, the Tenth Circuit panel’s decision violates the law of the U.S. Supreme Court as set out in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) and Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013). Further, the Petition points out that the panel has not followed accepted circuit court law, including precedent from the U.S. First, Second, Third, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and D.C. Circuit Courts. To the contrary, the erroneous law applied by the panel is not supported by any other circuit court. The Tenth Circuit decision stands alone, and Dow’s Petition asks for this to be corrected to avoid a split in the circuit courts. The same day that Dow filed its Petition, the Tenth Circuit ordered the class plaintiffs to file a response to Dow’s Petition by October 24, 2014. On October 21, 2014, the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed an amicus brief in support of Dow's Petition. On October 24, 2014, the class plaintiffs filed a response to Dow's Petition. The Court of Appeals may grant the Petition and rehear the case en banc or decline to rehear the case. If the Petition is denied or the results of any rehearing are unfavorable, the Company will pursue a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court. While it is unknowable whether or not the U.S. Supreme Court will accept the petition for review, there are several compelling reasons why the U.S. Supreme Court should grant the petition for writ of certiorari and if the petition for writ of certiorari is accepted, the Company believes it is likely that the District Court judgment will be vacated. |
|
| The Company has consistently denied plaintiffs’ allegations of price fixing and, as outlined above, the Company will continue to vigorously defend this litigation. As part of the Company’s review of the jury verdict, the resulting judgment and the Court of Appeals’ opinion, the Company assessed the legal and factual circumstances of the case, the trial record, the appellate record, and the applicable law including clear precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court. Based on this review and the reasons stated above, the Company believes the judgment and decision from the Court of Appeals are not appropriate. As a result, the Company has concluded it is not probable that a loss will occur and, therefore, a liability has not been recorded with respect to these matters. While the Company believes it is not probable a loss will occur, the existence of the jury verdict, the Court of Appeals' opinion and the pendency of the appeals process indicate that it is reasonably possible that a loss could occur. The estimate of the possible range of loss to Dow is zero to the $1.06 billion judgment (excluding post-judgment interest and possible award of class attorney fees). |
|
| On September 30, 2014, the "opt-out" cases that had been consolidated with the class action lawsuit for purposes of pre-trial proceedings were remanded from the District Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. |
|
| In addition to the matters described above, there are two separate but inter-related matters in Ontario and Quebec, Canada. In March 2014, the Superior Court of Justice in London, Ontario, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Dow filed its Notice of Motion for Leave to Appeal in March 2014, which was subsequently denied. The Quebec case has been stayed pending the outcome of the Ontario case. The Company has concluded it is not probable that a loss will occur and, therefore, a liability has not been recorded with respect to these matters. |
|
| Other Litigation Matters |
| In addition to the specific matters described above, the Company is party to a number of other claims and lawsuits arising out of the normal course of business with respect to commercial matters, including product liability, patent infringement, governmental regulation, contract and commercial litigation, and other actions. Certain of these actions purport to be class actions and seek damages in very large amounts. All such claims are being contested. Dow has an active risk management program consisting of numerous insurance policies secured from many carriers at various times. These policies often provide coverage that will be utilized to minimize the financial impact, if any, of the contingencies described above. It is the opinion of the Company’s management that the possibility is remote that the aggregate of all such other claims and lawsuits will have a material adverse impact on the results of operations, financial condition and cash flows of the Company. |
|
| Purchase Commitments |
| The Company has numerous agreements for the purchase of ethylene-related products globally. The purchase prices are determined primarily on a cost-plus basis. Total purchases under these agreements were $405 million in 2013, $304 million in 2012 and $552 million in 2011. The Company’s take-or-pay commitments associated with these agreements at September 30, 2014 are included in the table below. |
|
| The Company also has various commitments for take-or-pay and throughput agreements. These commitments are at prices not in excess of current market prices. The remaining terms for all but one of these agreements extend from one to 32 years. One agreement has a remaining term of 64 years. The 10-year future commitments for this agreement as well as the fixed and determinable portion of all other obligations under the Company’s purchase commitments have been updated as of September 30, 2014 and are included in the following table: |
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| Annual Fixed and Determinable Portion of | | | | | | |
| Take-or-Pay and Throughput Obligations | | | | | | |
| In millions | | | | | | |
| 2014 | $ | 3,286 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | |
| 2015 | 3,022 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | |
| 2016 | 2,696 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | |
| 2017 | 2,223 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | |
| 2018 | 1,967 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | |
| 2019 and beyond | 7,310 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Total | $ | 20,504 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | |
|
| In addition to the take-or-pay obligations at September 30, 2014, the Company had outstanding commitments which ranged from one to seven years for materials, services and other items used in the normal course of business of approximately $304 million. Such commitments were at prices not in excess of current market prices. |
|
| Guarantees |
| The following tables provide a summary of the final expiration, maximum future payments and recorded liability reflected in the consolidated balance sheets for each type of guarantee: |
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| Guarantees at September 30, 2014 | Final | | Maximum Future | | | Recorded | |
| In millions | Expiration | Payments | Liability |
| Guarantees | 2021 | | $ | 4,806 | | | $ | 140 | |
|
| Residual value guarantees | 2024 | | 986 | | | 125 | |
|
| Total guarantees | | | $ | 5,792 | | | $ | 265 | |
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| Guarantees at December 31, 2013 | Final | | Maximum Future | | | Recorded | |
| In millions | Expiration | Payments | Liability |
| Guarantees | 2021 | | $ | 5,074 | | | $ | 137 | |
|
| Residual value guarantees | 2021 | | 708 | | | 27 | |
|
| Total guarantees | | | $ | 5,782 | | | $ | 164 | |
|
|
| Guarantees |
| Guarantees arise during the ordinary course of business from relationships with customers and nonconsolidated affiliates when the Company undertakes an obligation to guarantee the performance of others (via delivery of cash or other assets) if specified triggering events occur. With guarantees, such as commercial or financial contracts, non-performance by the guaranteed party triggers the obligation of the Company to make payments to the beneficiary of the guarantee. The majority of the Company’s guarantees relate to debt of nonconsolidated affiliates, which have expiration dates ranging from less than one year to seven years, and trade financing transactions in Latin America, which typically expire within one year of inception. The Company’s current expectation is that future payment or performance related to the non-performance of others is considered unlikely. |
|
| During 2013, the Company entered into guarantee agreements (“Guarantees”) related to project financing for Sadara Chemical Company (“Sadara”), a nonconsolidated affiliate. The total of an Islamic bond and Additional Project Financing (collectively “Total Project Financing”) obtained by Sadara is approximately $12.5 billion. Sadara had $9.9 billion of Total Project Financing outstanding at September 30, 2014 ($5.8 billion at December 31, 2013). The Company's guarantee of the Total Project Financing is in proportion to the Company's 35 percent ownership interest in Sadara, or up to approximately $4.4 billion when the project financing is fully drawn. The Guarantees will be released upon completion of construction of the Sadara complex and satisfactory fulfillment of certain other conditions, including passage of an extensive operational testing program, which is currently anticipated by the end of 2017. |
|
| Residual Value Guarantees |
| The Company provides guarantees related to leased assets specifying the residual value that will be available to the lessor at lease termination through sale of the assets to the lessee or third parties. |
|
| During the third quarter of 2014, the Company entered into a residual value guarantee as part of a sale-leaseback transaction for a significant portion of its North American railcar fleet. The maximum value of the guarantee is $229 million. The sale transaction resulted in a deferred gain of $102 million, which was recorded as a liability due to the guarantee and will be deferred until expiration of the ten-year lease unless otherwise terminated. |
|
| Asset Retirement Obligations |
| The Company has recognized asset retirement obligations for the following activities: demolition and remediation activities at manufacturing sites in the United States, Canada, Brazil, China, Argentina and Europe; and capping activities at landfill sites in the United States, Canada, Brazil and Italy. The Company has also recognized conditional asset retirement obligations related to asbestos encapsulation as a result of planned demolition and remediation activities at manufacturing and administrative sites in the United States, Canada, Brazil, China, Argentina and Europe. |
|
| The aggregate carrying amount of asset retirement obligations recognized by the Company was $86 million at September 30, 2014 and $89 million at December 31, 2013. The discount rate used to calculate the Company’s asset retirement obligations was 0.88 percent at September 30, 2014 and at December 31, 2013. These obligations are included in the consolidated balance sheets as "Accrued and other current liabilities" and "Other noncurrent obligations." |
|
| The Company has not recognized conditional asset retirement obligations for which a fair value cannot be reasonably estimated in its consolidated financial statements. It is the opinion of the Company’s management that the possibility is remote that such conditional asset retirement obligations, when estimable, will have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements based on current costs. |
|
| K-Dow Arbitration |
| In February 2009, the Company initiated arbitration proceedings against Petrochemical Industries Company (K.S.C.) ("PIC") alleging that PIC breached the Joint Venture Formation Agreement related to the establishment of K-Dow, a proposed 50:50 global petrochemicals joint venture with PIC, by failing to close the transaction. On May 6, 2013, the Company and PIC entered into a Deed providing for payment and resolution of the Company's claims against PIC under the K-Dow arbitration. On May 7, 2013, the Company confirmed the receipt of a $2.195 billion cash payment from PIC, which included damages awarded of $2.161 billion as well as recovery of Dow's costs incurred in the arbitration, including legal fees. In the second quarter of 2013, the Company recorded a pretax gain of $2.195 billion, of which $2.161 billion is included in "Sundry income (expense) - net" and $34 million is included in "Cost of sales" in the consolidated statements of income and reflected in Corporate. The K-Dow arbitration is considered final and settled in full. |
