| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block] | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES 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, 2015 , the Company had accrued obligations of $729 million for probable environmental remediation and restoration costs, including $78 million for the remediation of Superfund sites. These obligations are included in "Accrued and other current liabilities" and "Other noncurrent obligations" in the consolidated balance sheets. 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, 2014 , the Company had accrued obligations of $706 million for probable environmental remediation and restoration costs, including $78 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 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, 2013, and 2014, the Company submitted and had approved by the MDEQ, amendments to the Work Plan. As of December 31, 2014 , remediation had been completed on all 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. 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 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 ("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-up criteria. In January 2015, the Company and the EPA entered into an order to address remediation of the Floodplain. The remedial work is expected to take place over the next 6 years. 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 - two separate orders to address remedial actions in two of the nine geographic segments in the first Operable Unit and the order to address the Floodplain. 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, 2015 , the accrual for these off-site matters was $63 million (included in the total accrued obligation of $729 million at September 30, 2015 ). At December 31, 2014 , the Company had an accrual for these off-site matters of $62 million (included in the total accrued obligation of $706 million at December 31, 2014 ). 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, and use of pesticides containing dibromochloropropane (“DBCP”) have 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 four 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 2014, 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, 2014. The resulting study, completed by ARPC in December 2014, estimated that the undiscounted cost of disposing of pending and future claims against Union Carbide and Amchem, excluding future defense and processing costs, to be between $540 million and $640 million through 2029 based on the data as of September 30, 2014. As in earlier studies, ARPC provided longer periods of time in its December 2014 study, but also reaffirmed that forecasts for shorter periods of time are more accurate than those for longer periods of time. In December 2014, based on ARPC's December 2014 study and Union Carbide's own review of the asbestos claim and resolution activity, Union Carbide determined that an adjustment to the accrual was required due to the increase in mesothelioma claim activity compared with what had been forecasted in the December 2012 study. Accordingly, Union Carbide increased its asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims by $78 million . Union Carbide's asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims was $513 million at December 31, 2014 , and approximately 22 percent of the recorded liability related to pending claims and approximately 78 percent related to future claims. Based on Union Carbide’s review of 2015 activity, Union Carbide determined that no adjustment to the accrual was required at September 30, 2015 . Union Carbide’s asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims was $454 million at September 30, 2015 . Approximately 19 percent of the recorded liability related to pending claims and approximately 81 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 most 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 $10 million at September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014 . 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 In millions Sep 30, Dec 31, Receivables for defense and resolution costs – carriers with settlement agreements $ 51 $ 69 Receivables for insurance recoveries – carriers without settlement agreements 10 10 Total $ 61 $ 79 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. Union Carbide expenses defense costs as incurred. The pretax impact for defense and resolution costs, net of insurance, was $20 million in the third quarter of 2015 ( $32 million in the third quarter of 2014 ) and $65 million in the first nine months of 2015 ( $86 million in the first nine months of 2014) and was reflected in "Cost of sales" in the consolidated statements of income. 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. 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 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 "Rehearing Petition") with the Court of Appeals, which was denied on November 7, 2014. On March 9, 2015, the Company filed a petition for writ of certiorari ("Writ Petition") with the U.S. Supreme Court ("Supreme Court"), seeking judicial review by the Supreme Court and requesting that the Supreme Court ultimately correct fundamental errors in the Circuit Court opinion. While it is unknowable whether or not the Supreme Court will accept the Writ Petition for review, there are several compelling reasons why the 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. Specifically, it is the Company's position that the Tenth Circuit decision violates the law as expressed by the 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). The Tenth Circuit also did not follow accepted law from other federal circuits on dispositive case issues, including legal precedent from the U.S. First, Second, Third, Fifth, Ninth and D.C. Circuit Courts. Finally, the erroneous law applied by the Tenth Circuit is not supported by any other circuit court. In April 2015, six amici filed Amicus Briefs in support of Dow’s Writ Petition. The class plaintiffs' opposition brief was filed May 11, 2015. Dow filed its reply brief on May 22, 2015. On June 8, 2015, the Supreme Court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, PEG, et al., ("Tyson Foods") (Supreme Court No. 14-1146), which presented a question core to the questions presented in Dow’s Writ Petition. Dow’s case was considered by the Supreme Court in conference on June 11, 2015. On June 15, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its decisions from its conference and did not rule on Dow’s Writ Petition. Subsequently, Dow’s Writ Petition has not been listed for further consideration by the Supreme Court at its weekly conferences. Dow has been advised that this means that the Supreme Court is withholding further consideration of Dow’s Writ Petition while it considers Tyson Foods on the merits. As a result, Dow does not expect any further action on its Writ Petition until sometime in 2016. Dow believes that the Supreme Court has accepted Tyson Foods for the compelling reasons also advanced by Dow in its Writ Petition and that ultimately the Supreme Court will issue an opinion in Tyson Foods that is favorable to Dow. On August 14, 2015, Dow filed an Amicus Brief in Tyson Foods supporting Tyson Foods’ position. The Tyson Foods oral argument before the Supreme Court is scheduled for November 10, 2015. The Company has consistently denied plaintiffs’ allegations of price fixing and, as outlined above, the Company will continue to vigorously defend this litigation. As with any litigation and based on various factors, the Company has had and may from time to time pursue confidential settlement negotiations to resolve the matter. 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, the briefing before the United States Supreme Court in Tyson Foods and the applicable law including clear precedent from the 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 subsequent denial of Dow's Rehearing Petition 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. On June 10, 2015, a final pretrial conference was held in the “opt-out cases,” but no trial date has currently been set. 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. This matter is currently in the pretrial stage, but no trial date has been set. 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 the opt-out litigation or the Canadian matters. Bayer CropScience v. Dow AgroSciences ICC Arbitration On August 13, 2012, Bayer CropScience AG and Bayer CropScience NV (together, “Bayer”) filed a request for arbitration with the International Chamber of Commerce International Court of Arbitration against Dow AgroSciences LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, and other subsidiaries of the Company (collectively, “DAS”) under a 1992 license agreement executed by predecessors of the parties (the “License Agreement”). In its request for arbitration, Bayer alleged that (i) DAS breached the License Agreement, (ii) the License Agreement was properly terminated with no ongoing rights to DAS, (iii) DAS has infringed and continues to infringe its patent rights related to the use of the pat gene in certain soybean and cotton seed products, and (iv) Bayer is entitled to monetary damages and injunctive relief. DAS denied that it breached the License Agreement and asserted that the License Agreement remained in effect because it was not properly terminated. DAS also asserted that all of Bayer’s patents at issue are invalid and/or not infringed, and, therefore, for these reasons (and others), a license was not required. During the pendency of the arbitration proceeding, DAS filed six re-examination petitions with the United States Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”) against the Bayer patents, asserting that each patent is invalid based on the doctrine against double-patenting and/or prior art. The USPTO granted all six petitions, and, on February 26, 2015, the USPTO issued an office action rejecting the patentability of the sole Bayer patent claim in the only asserted Bayer patent that has not expired and that forms the basis for the vast majority of the damages in the arbitral award discussed below. The USPTO re-examination proceedings remain ongoing. A three-member arbitration tribunal presided over the arbitration proceeding (the “tribunal”). In a decision dated October 9, 2015, and received by DAS on October 15, 2015, the tribunal determined that (i) DAS breached the License Agreement, (ii) Bayer properly terminated the License Agreement, (iii) all of the patents remaining in the proceeding are valid and infringed, and (iv) that Bayer is entitled to monetary damages in the amount of $455 million inclusive of pre-judgment interest and costs (the “arbitral award”). One of the arbitrators, however, issued a partial dissent finding that all of the patents are invalid based on the double-patenting doctrine. The tribunal also denied Bayer’s request for injunctive relief. The arbitration award is not self-executing, and must be confirmed by a court for it to be enforceable and to have the legal effect of a judgment. On October 16, 2015, Bayer filed a motion in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia seeking to confirm the arbitral award (the “federal court proceeding”). In the federal court proceeding, DAS will oppose confirmation of the arbitral award and will move to have the arbitral award vacated. The Company believes the arbitral award is fundamentally flawed in numerous respects and is confident that it will be vacated in the federal court proceeding or on appeal once the applicable law is properly applied. The Company continues to believe that Bayer’s patents are invalid for multiple reasons and that the damages awarded cannot be supported under prevailing patent law, including U.S. Supreme Court precedent. In addition, the Company anticipates that the USPTO will conclude with a final office action declaring each of the patents invalid in the pending re-examination proceedings which will provide an additional basis to vacate the arbitral award. As part of the Company’s review of the arbitral award, the Company assessed the legal and factual circumstances of the case, the record of the arbitration and USPTO re-examination proceedings, and the applicable law to vacate the arbitral award. Based on this review and the reasons stated above, the Company has concluded it is not probable that a loss has been incurred and, therefore, a liability has not been recorded with respect to this matter. While the Company believes it is not probable that a loss has been incurred, the existence of the arbitral award indicates that it is reasonably possible that a loss could occur. The estimate of the possible range of loss to the Company is zero to the $455 million amount set forth in the arbitral award (excluding post-judgment interest). The arbitral award will not impact DAS’s commercialization of its soybean and cotton seed products, including those containing the ENLIST™ technologies. 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 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 A summary of the Company's purchase commitments can be found in Note 14 to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014. There have been no material changes to the purchase commitments since December 31, 2014 . 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, 2015 In millions Final Expiration Maximum Future Payments Recorded Liability Guarantees 2021 $ 4,739 $ 106 Residual value guarantees 2025 910 118 Total guarantees $ 5,649 $ 224 Guarantees at December 31, 2014 In millions Final Expiration Maximum Future Payments Recorded Liability Guarantees 2021 $ 5,042 $ 160 Residual value guarantees 2024 951 123 Total guarantees $ 5,993 $ 283 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 six 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 $11.8 billion of Total Project Financing outstanding at September 30, 2015 ( $10.5 billion at December 31, 2014 ). The Company's guarantee of th |
