| 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 March 31, 2016 , the Company had accrued obligations of $695 million for probable environmental remediation and restoration costs, including $73 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, 2015 , the Company had accrued obligations of $670 million for probable environmental remediation and restoration costs, including $74 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 was renewed and replaced by the MDEQ on September 25, 2015, and 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. The Company also submitted and had approved by the MDEQ, amendments to the Work Plan. Remediation had been completed on all 132 properties that tested above the remediation criteria, and this completion is noted in the License. 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 five 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 - three separate orders to address remedial actions in three 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 March 31, 2016 , the accrual for these off-site matters was $64 million (included in the total accrued obligation of $695 million at March 31, 2016 ). At December 31, 2015 , the Company had an accrual for these off-site matters of $62 million (included in the total accrued obligation of $670 million at December 31, 2015 ). 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 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. Based on a study completed in January 2003 by Analysis, Research & Planning Corporation (now known as Ankura Consulting Group, LLC (“Ankura”) as a result of the March 2016 merger of Analysis, Research & Planning Corporation and Ankura), 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 Ankura study at each balance sheet date to determine whether the accrual continues to be appropriate. In addition, Union Carbide has requested Ankura to review Union Carbide’s historical asbestos claim and resolution activity each year since 2004 to determine the appropriateness of updating the most recent Ankura study. In October 2015, Union Carbide requested Ankura to review its historical asbestos claim and resolution activity and determine the appropriateness of updating its December 2014 study. In response to that request, Ankura reviewed and analyzed data through September 30, 2015. In December 2015, Ankura stated that an update of its study would not provide a more likely estimate of future events than the estimate reflected in the December 2014 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 Ankura's response, Union Carbide determined that no change to the accrual would be required. At December 31, 2015, the asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims was $437 million . At December 31, 2015, approximately 21 percent of the recorded liability related to pending claims and approximately 79 percent related to future claims. Based on Union Carbide’s review of 2016 activity, Union Carbide determined that no adjustment to the accrual was required at March 31, 2016 . Union Carbide’s asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims was $423 million at March 31, 2016 . Approximately 22 percent of the recorded liability related to pending claims and approximately 78 percent related to future claims. Union Carbide has receivables for insurance recoveries related to its asbestos liability as well as receivables for defense and resolution costs submitted to insurance carriers that have settlement agreements in place regarding their asbestos-related insurance coverage. 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. At March 31, 2016 , Union Carbide's receivable for insurance recoveries related to its asbestos liability and defense and resolution costs was $53 million ( $61 million at December 31, 2015 ). Union Carbide expenses defense costs as incurred. The pretax impact for defense and resolution costs, net of insurance, was $17 million in the first quarter of 2016 ( $24 million in the first quarter of 2015 ) 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 Class Action Lawsuit 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 ("plaintiff class"). 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"), and 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, seeking judicial review by the Supreme Court and requesting that it correct fundamental errors in the Circuit Court opinion. There were several compelling reasons why the Supreme Court should have granted the Writ Petition and the Company believed it was likely that the District Court judgment would be vacated. Specifically, the Company's position was that the Tenth Circuit decision violated the law as expressed by the Supreme Court as set out in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes , 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) ("Wal-Mart") and Comcast Corp. v. Behrend , 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013) ("Comcast") . 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 Company argued that the erroneous law applied by the Tenth Circuit was not supported by any other federal circuit court. In April 2015, six amici filed amicus briefs in support of the Company's Writ Petition. On June 8, 2015, the Supreme Court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari in another case, Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, PEG, et al., ("Tyson Foods") (Supreme Court No. 14-1146), which presented an issue core to the questions presented in the Company's Writ Petition: whether class-wide damages can be determined by simply applying the average injury observed in a sample. The Company'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 the Company's Writ Petition. Subsequently, the Writ Petition was not listed for further consideration by the Supreme Court at its weekly conferences. The Company was advised that this meant that the Supreme Court was withholding further consideration of the Company's Writ Petition while it considered the Tyson Foods case on the merits. As a result, the Company did not expect any further action on its Writ Petition until sometime in 2016. The Company believed that the Supreme Court accepted Tyson Foods for the compelling reasons also advanced by the Company in its Writ Petition and that the Supreme Court would issue an opinion in Tyson Foods that was favorable to the Company's case. Accordingly, on August 14, 2015, the Company filed an amicus brief in Tyson Foods supporting Tyson Foods’ position. On February 26, 2016, the Company announced a proposed settlement under which Dow would pay the plaintiff class $835 million , which includes damages, class attorney fees and post-judgment interest. The agreement is conditioned upon the Supreme Court holding Dow's Writ Petition in abeyance and subsequent approval of the class settlement by the District Court. The proposed settlement will resolve the $1.06 billion judgment and any subsequent claim for attorneys' fees, costs and post-judgment interest against Dow. As a result, in the first quarter of 2016, the Company recorded a loss of $835 million , included in "Sundry income (expense) - net" in the consolidated statements of income and reflected in the Performance Materials & Chemicals segment. On March 7, 2016, the Supreme Court approved the joint motion to hold Dow’s Writ Petition in abeyance and a motion to approve the settlement is now pending before the District Court. The Company expects to pay the $835 million settlement in the second half of 2016. Dow changed its risk assessment on this matter as a result of new growing political uncertainties due to events within the Supreme Court, including Justice Scalia's death, and the increased likelihood for unfavorable outcomes for businesses involved in class action lawsuits. Of particular importance was the fact that Justice Scalia had written the majority opinions in both the Wal-Mart and Comcast cases. The Company continues to believe that it was not part of any conspiracy and the judgment was fundamentally flawed as a matter of class action law. Opt-Out Cases Shortly after the July 2008 class certification ruling, a series of "opt-out" cases were filed by a number of large volume purchasers who elected not to be class members. These opt-out cases are substantively identical to the class action lawsuit, but expanded the period of time to include 1994 through 1998. On September 30, 2014, the opt-out cases, which 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. A consolidated jury trial of the opt-out cases began on March 8, 2016. On April 5, 2016, the Company entered into a binding settlement for the opt-out cases under which Dow would pay the plaintiffs $400 million , inclusive of damages and attorney fees, with payment due on May 4, 2016. The Company changed its risk assessment on this matter as a result of the uncertainty of a jury trial outcome along with the automatic trebling of an adverse verdict. As a result, the Company recorded a loss of $400 million in the first quarter of 2016, included in "Sundry income (expense) - net" in the consolidated statements of income and reflected in the Performance Materials & Chemicals segment. The Company continues to deny allegations of price fixing and maintains that it was not part of any conspiracy. Canadian Matters 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. The Company filed its Notice of Motion for Leave to Appeal in March 2014, which was subsequently denied. This matter is currently in the preliminary pre-trial stage, but no trial date has been set. With a certified class in the Ontario case, the Quebec case is effectively rendered moot and, therefore, the parties have agreed that it will not be prosecuted independently of any future outcome in the Ontario case. The Company has concluded it is not probable a loss has been incurred and, therefore, a liability is not recorded with respect to these matters. The Company has determined that any possible loss on these matters is not material to the Company’s results of operations and cash flows as the Company's exposure is significantly less than the Class Action Lawsuit and Opt-Out Cases due to: (i) the limited exposure period based upon other known settlements relating to the Canadian Matters, (ii) antitrust verdicts in Canada are not trebled, and (iii) the Canadian cases are based on different legal theories and different applicable law. 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 ("ICC") 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. A three-member arbitration tribunal presided over the arbitration proceeding (the “tribunal”). In a decision dated October 9, 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 ("federal district court") seeking to confirm the arbitral award. DAS opposed the motion and filed separate motions to vacate the award, or in the alternative, to stay enforcement of the award until the USPTO issues final office actions with respect to the re-examination proceedings. On January 15, 2016, the federal district court denied DAS' motions and confirmed the award. The USPTO has now issued office actions rejecting the patentability of all four patents that Bayer asserted in the case. The USPTO re-examination proceedings remain ongoing. DAS has appealed the federal district court's decision, and DAS has posted a bond to stay enforcement of the award during the appeal. The Company believes the arbitral award is fundamentally flawed in numerous respects and is confident that it will be vacated on appeal because it (i) violates U.S. public policy prohibiting enforcement of invalid patents, (ii) manifestly disregards applicable law, and (iii) disregards unambiguous contract provisions and ignores the essence of the applicable contracts. 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 final office actions declaring each of the patents invalid in the pending re-examination proceedings which will provide a strong basis to vacate the arbitral award. If the federal appellate court denies the Company's appeal, the Company can seek judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court. 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 status, 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 and the federal district court confirmation of the 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 may provide coverage that could be utilized to minimize the financial impact, if any, of certain 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 15 to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015. There have been no material changes to the purchase commitments since December 31, 2015 . 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 March 31, 2016 In millions Final Expiration Maximum Future Payments Recorded Liability Guarantees 2021 $ 4,977 $ 100 Residual value guarantees 2025 921 115 Total guarantees $ 5,898 $ 215 Guarantees at December 31, 2015 In millions Final Expiration Maximum Future Payments Recorded Liability Guarantees 2021 $ 4,910 $ 102 Residual value guarantees 2025 912 117 Total guarantees $ 5,822 $ 219 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 five 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. The Company has 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 $12 billion of Total Project Financing outstanding at March 31, 2016 ( $11.9 billion at December 31, 2015 ). 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. Warranties The Company provides warranty policies on certain products and accrues liabilities under warranty policies using historical warranty claim experience. Adjustments are made to accruals as claim data and historical experience change. The following table summarizes changes in the Company's warranty liability: Warranty Accrual Mar 31, Dec 31, 2015 In mil |
