Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Impact of IFRS:
Oil and Gas
kpmg.com/ifrs
KPMG International
Contents
Overview of the IFRS conversion process Accounting and reporting issues 1. Exploration and evaluation (E&E) assets 2. Depletion, depreciation and amortisation (DD&A) 3. Impairment of non-financial assets 4. Decommissioning and environmental provisions 5. Joint arrangements 6. Revenue recognition 7 . Reserves reporting 8. Financial instruments Information technology and systems considerations From accounting gaps to information sources How to identify the impact on information systems Oil and gas accounting differences and respective system issues Parallel reporting: Timing the changeover from local GAAP to IFRS reporting Harmonisation of internal and external reporting 2 3 5 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 22 23 24 26 28
People: Knowledge transfer and change management 29 Business and reporting Stakeholder analysis and communications Audit Committee and Board of Directors considerations Monitoring peer group Other areas of IFRS risks to mitigate Benefits of IFRS KPMG: An Experienced Team, a Global Network Contact us
2011 KPMG IFRG Limited, a UK company, limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
30 30 30 30 30 31 32 IBC
2011 KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG International). KPMG International provides no client services and is a Swiss entity with which the independent member firms of the KPMG network are affiliated.
Foreword
Accounting for oil and gas activities presents many difficulties. Significant upfront investment, uncertainty over prospects and long project lives have led to a variety of approaches being developed by companies, and a range of country-specific guidance for the sector. As countries around the world adopt IFRS, accounting approaches for affected companies may need to be reassessed. Many countries converted to IFRS in 2005 and conversions are imminent for other countries such as Canada and South Korea in 2011 and Mexico in 2012. Japan has permitted the early adoption of IFRS by listed companies from years ending on or after 31 March 2010 and is expected to announce a final decision on whether to mandate adoption in 2012. The US will likely announce later in 2011 or 2012 its plan as to how IFRS might be incorporated into the financial reporting requirements for USdomestic issuers. As countries adopt a single set of high quality, global accounting and financial reporting standards, there should be greater global consistency and transparency. However, it is recognised that extractive activities is an area in which there is little IFRS guidance. There is also variation in practice between companies applying IFRS, which was highlighted in KPMGs survey The Application of IFRS: Oil and Gas published in October 2008. This publication looks at some of the main accounting issues across oil and gas companies. It considers currently effective standards and notes future developments that could impact accounting in the sector. The long-term future of accounting for extractive activities is as yet unclear. The IASB issued the discussion paper Extractive Activities in April 2010, and the main proposals of the project team and the responses to this discussion paper are discussed in this publication. A decision on whether the Extractive Activities project should be added to the IASBs active agenda is expected when the IASB considers responses to its Agenda Consultation 2011, which are due by 30November 2011. This publication also discusses the IFRS conversion project as a whole, including the importance of the conversion management process, and considers the impact of IFRS conversion across an organisation. Any conversion project will be significantly more detailed than merely addressing the issues discussed in this publication. However, making a head start in identifying the accounting and business related issues on conversion can avoid accounting challenges in the years to come. While the main audience of this publication are those contemplating IFRS conversion, we hope that there is something stimulating and thought provoking for all those already dealing with IFRS in the oil and gas sector.
Jimmy Daboo Global Energy & Natural Resources Auditing and Accounting Leader KPMG in the UK
2011 KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG International). KPMG International provides no client services and is a Swiss entity with which the independent member firms of the KPMG network are affiliated.
2011 KPMG IFRG Limited, a UK company, limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
2011 KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG International). KPMG International provides no client services and is a Swiss entity with which the independent member firms of the KPMG network are affiliated.
2011 KPMG IFRG Limited, a UK company, limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Exploration and evaluation (E&E) assets Depletion, depreciation and amortisation (DD&A) Impairment of non-financial assets Decommissioning and environmental provisions Joint arrangements Revenue recognition Reserves reporting Financial instruments
In our experience, these issues are significant to oil and gas companies for the following reasons. Issues may be pervasive across the sector and will require significant time and cost to evaluate and implement; for example, accounting for E&E expenditure and assets. Conversion may have a significant impact on information systems, accounting processes and systems. For example, the impact of different depreciation and amortisation policies may lead to adjustments in the asset sub-ledger. Accounting requirements may require careful consideration of contract
terms, for example those terms outlined in joint arrangements. Judgement may be required in selecting significant accounting policies that impact future results. Accounting and reporting requirements may be subject to future change for which organisations need to be prepared. We recommend KPMGs publication The Application of IFRS: Oil and Gas for greater detail on the issues raised in this document, and examples of disclosures from existing IFRS oil and gas companies.
2011 KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG International). KPMG International provides no client services and is a Swiss entity with which the independent member firms of the KPMG network are affiliated.
2011 KPMG IFRG Limited, a UK company, limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
2011 KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG International). KPMG International provides no client services and is a Swiss entity with which the independent member firms of the KPMG network are affiliated.
2011 KPMG IFRG Limited, a UK company, limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
IFRS does not define either successful efforts or modified full cost accounting, despite these being the two most common accounting approaches applied by IFRS companies
The costs involved in E&E and development activities are considerable, and often there are years between the start of exploration and the commencement of production. Even with todays advanced technology, exploration is a risky and complex activity. These factors create specific challenges in accounting for E&E expenditure. There was no IFRS that specifically addressed E&E activities until IFRS6 became effective in 2006. IFRS 6 was intended to be a temporary standard while the IASB undertook an in-depth project on extractive activities. With that in mind, the standard was written with a view to allowing companies to carry over to IFRS their previous GAAP practices to a large extent. Traditionally under national GAAPs, oil and gas companies have accounted for E&E costs using one of two broadly defined methods: the successful efforts method or the full cost method. However, as there is no single accepted definition of either method under IFRS, the application of these approaches canvary. Applying this test, it would be rare for expenditure other than licence acquisition costs to be capitalised prior to the determination of commercial reserves. IFRS 6 relaxes this approach for E&E assets, allowing capitalisation of E&E costs by expenditure class if the company elects that accounting policy.
Classification
Classification of expenditure forms the basis of presentation and subsequent measurement of assets E&E assets are a separate class of asset that is measured initially at cost. E&E assets are classified as tangible or intangible assets depending on their nature. Tangible E&E assets may include the items of plant and equipment used for exploration activity, such as vehicles and drilling rigs. Intangible E&E assets may include costs of exploration permits and licences as well as depreciation of tangible assets consumed in developing intangible assets such as exploratory wells.
First-time adoption
Oil and gas deemed cost election There is an oil and gas industry-specific exemption in IFRS 1 First-time Adoption of IFRS. Oil and gas companies can elect to measure E&E assets at the amount determined under previous GAAP at the date of transition to IFRS. Development and production assets can be measured at the amount determined for the cost centre under previous GAAP , with an allocation to the underlying assets on a pro rata basis using reserve volumes or reserve values at transition date. This exemption can assist oil and gas companies in preparing their first IFRS financial statements without having to revisit all previous accounting for these items. For more information on the reliefs available on the adoption of IFRS, we recommend that you refer to KPMGs publication IFRS Handbook: First-time Adoption of IFRS.
2011 KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG International). KPMG International provides no client services and is a Swiss entity with which the independent member firms of the KPMG network are affiliated.
2011 KPMG IFRG Limited, a UK company, limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
2011 KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG International). KPMG International provides no client services and is a Swiss entity with which the independent member firms of the KPMG network are affiliated.
2011 KPMG IFRG Limited, a UK company, limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
Use existing accounting methods such as successful efforts accounting (19%). The range of responses and the concerns raised underline the difficulties in accounting for E&E assets and the divergence of practice. Measurement at historical cost preferred Almost all respondents agreed with the proposal to measure assets at historical cost because it is a measure that is verifiable, can be prepared in a timely manner and can be used to assess financial performance and stewardship. These respondents explained that they did not support fair value because it would introduce excessive subjectivity and short-term volatility to the financial statements. It was also thought that the use of fair value would impose significant preparation and audit costs that are not justified because users are not interested in that information. The research conducted by the project team indicated that analysts, lenders and venture capitalists would make only limited use of an estimate of fair value due to the subjectivity and degree of estimation involved.
2011 KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG International). KPMG International provides no client services and is a Swiss entity with which the independent member firms of the KPMG network are affiliated.
2011 KPMG IFRG Limited, a UK company, limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
A move from group depreciation methods or depreciation pools under previous GAAP to component depreciation under IFRS could require significant effort Component accounting
Significant judgement may be required in determining components, and systems needs to be capable of tracking components separately Companies need to allocate the cost of an item of property, plant and equipment into its significant parts, or components, and depreciate each part separately. For each component the appropriate depreciation method, rate and period needs to be considered. This process may involve significant judgement. An item of property, plant and equipment should be separated into components when those parts are significant in relation to the total cost of the item. This does not mean that a company should split its assets into an infinite number of components if the effect on the financial statements would be immaterial. Some oil and gas companies that have been applying full cost accounting under previous GAAP may have been calculating DD&A at a cost centre (typically a country) level. While there is no cost-pool concept under IFRS, the standard does allow companies to group and depreciate components within the same asset class together, provided they have the same useful life and depreciation method. However, it is unlikely that development or production oil and gas assets will be able to be grouped at a level greater than a field; this is because each field may be significant and the lives of the fields, and therefore depreciation rates, will vary. Companies need to consider the impact, including on accounting systems, of depleting assets on a much more detailed level than previous GAAP .
Depreciation method
Companies need to choose the most appropriate depreciation method IFRS do not specify one particular method of depreciation as preferable. Oil and gas companies have the option to use the straight-line method, the reducing balance method or the unit-ofproduction method, as long as it reflects the pattern in which the economic benefits associated with the asset are consumed. The unit-of-production method is most commonly used to deplete upstream oil and gas assets, using a ratio that reflects the annual production of a field in proportion to the estimate of reserves within that field. IFRS provides no specific guidance on how the assumptions within the reserve estimates should be calculated or approximated. Consequently, practice varies as to which reserves base is used in the calculation of DD&A.
depreciation/amortisation of E&E assets should commence. Commence depreciation/amortisation when the whole field is ready to commence operations, since, in effect, it is from this point that economic benefits will be realised. Commence depreciation/ amortisation during the E&E phase as the assets are available for use when considered on a stand-alone basis; however such depreciation/ amortisation is capitalised to the extent that the assets are used in thedevelopmentof other assets.
Commencement of depreciation/amortisation
Available for use Depreciation or amortisation starts when an asset is available for use. For assets in the development stage there may be pilot testing phases prior to the start of full production. Whether incidental production arising during any such phases triggers depreciation depends on the assessment of whether the asset is available for use. Some E&E assets (e.g. a drilling rig) may be available for use immediately and so could be depreciated/amortised during the E&E phase. Other assets will not be available for use until the whole field is ready to commence operations. In our view, there are two reasonable approaches to determining when
2011 KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG International). KPMG International provides no client services and is a Swiss entity with which the independent member firms of the KPMG network are affiliated.
2011 KPMG IFRG Limited, a UK company, limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
2011 KPMG IFRG Limited, a UK company, limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
3
E&E assets
Annual impairment testing for intangible assets that are not yet available for use is relaxed for E&E assets Development and production assets
Reporting date consideration of impairment indicators For non-current assets (other than goodwill and E&E assets) IAS36 Impairment of Assets requires companies to assess at the end of each reporting period whether there are any indicators that an asset is impaired. If there is such an indication, then recoverable amount needs to be assessed. An impairment loss is recognised for any excess of carrying amount over recoverable amount. If recoverable amount cannot be determined for the individual asset, because the asset does not generate independent cash inflows separate from those of other assets, then the impairment loss is recognised and measured based on the cash-generating unit to which the assetbelongs. units for impairment testing purposes. Allocation of assets to CGUs and impairment groups requires judgement and the interaction with indicators of impairment will require consideration. Indicators of impairment Some examples of indicators of impairment are outlined below. Market value has declined significantly or the company has operating or cash losses. For example, a significant downward movement in the oil price may result in operating cash losses and represent a trigger for impairment. Technological obsolescence. Competition. Market capitalisation. For example, the carrying amount of the oil and gas companys net assets exceeds its market capitalisation. This may be a particular risk for companies with large E&E assets. Significant regulatory changes. For example, increased regulation of environmental rehabilitation processes. Physical damage to the asset. For example, damage to a drilling rig caused by an explosion. Significant adverse effect on the company that will change the way in which the asset is used/ expected to be used. For example, the re-nationalisation requirements of some governments may lead to some projects being diluted to accommodate a government interest.
E&E assets are exempt from certain impairment testing requirements IFRS 6 requires E&E assets to be assessed for impairment in two circumstances. When facts and circumstances suggest that the carrying amount of an E&E asset may exceed its recoverable amount. When E&E activities have been completed, i.e. when the commercial viability and technical feasibility of that asset have been determined and prior to reclassification to development assets. The standard provides the following examples of trigger events that indicate that an E&E asset should be tested for impairment: expiration of the right to explore; substantive expenditure on further exploration for and evaluation of mineral resources in the specific area is neither budgeted nor planned; commercially viable reserves have not been discovered and the company plans to discontinue activities in the specific area; and data exists to show that while development activity will proceed, the carrying amount of the E&E asset will not be recovered in full through such activity. This provides relief from the general requirements of IFRS, which require annual impairment testing for intangible assets that are not yet available for use. Impairment testing calculations are performed in line with general impairment requirements and take into account the time value of money.
Goodwill
Impairment testing at least annually Under IFRS, oil and gas companies are required to test goodwill (and intangible assets with indefinite useful lives) for impairment at least annually,
2011 KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG International). KPMG International provides no client services and is a Swiss entity with which the independent member firms of the KPMG network are affiliated.
2011 KPMG IFRG Limited, a UK company, limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
irrespective of whether indicators of impairment exist. Additional testing at interim reporting dates is required if impairment indicators are present. Goodwill by itself does not generate cash inflows independently of other assets or group of assets and therefore is not tested for impairment separately. Instead, it should be allocated to the acquirers CGUs that are expected to benefit from the synergies of the related business combination. Goodwill is allocated to a CGU that represents the lowest level within the company at which the goodwill is monitored for internal management purposes. The CGU cannot be larger than an operating segment as defined in IFRS 8 Operating Segments, before aggregation. An impairment loss is recognised and measured at the amount by which the CGUs carrying amount, including goodwill, exceeds its recoverable amount.
The indicators of impairment for E&E assets differ from those in IAS36.
When management determines that there is a high likelihood that the carrying amount of the asset will not be recovered, then the E&E asset should be tested for impairment.
l
The proposals concluded that IAS36 should not be applied to E&E assets. The basis for this proposal was a view that it is not possible to make a reliable judgement of whether the carrying amount is less than the recoverable amount until sufficient information is available.
l
Impairment reversals
Reversal of impairment losses restricted Impairment losses related to goodwill cannot be reversed. However, for other assets companies assess whether there is an indication that a previously recognised impairment loss has reversed. If there is such an indication, then impairment losses are reversed if the recoverable amount has increased,subject to certain restrictions.
Of respondents who commented on impairment, most (73%) opposed the proposals. Some respondents suggested that the IASB include a review of IAS36 in any future project to alleviate difficulties in applying IAS36 to E&E assets. The potential of the proposed approach to delay recognition of any impairment loss and the reliance on management judgement were noted by some respondents. Some respondents remarked that the fact that the IAS36 impairment test approach is not considered to work for E&E assets may imply that the project team has proposed the wrong asset recognition model.
2011 KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG International). KPMG International provides no client services and is a Swiss entity with which the independent member firms of the KPMG network are affiliated.
2011 KPMG IFRG Limited, a UK company, limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
IFRS may result in the earlier recognition of provisions than many national GAAPs
Oil and gas companies often are exposed to legal, contractual and constructive obligations to meet the costs of decommissioning and dismantling assets at the end of their production life and to restore the site. These costs are likely to be a significant item of expenditure for most oil and gascompanies.
Measurement
Judgement is required to arrive at the best estimate The provision is measured at the best estimate of costs to be incurred. This takes the time value of money into account, if material. The best estimate may be based on the single most likely cost of decommissioning and takes uncertainties into account in either the cash flows or discount rate used in measuring the provision. The discount rate should reflect the risks specific to the liability and adjusting the discount rate for risk often is complex and involves a high degree of judgement. There are many complexities in calculating an estimate of expenditure to be incurred. Technological advances may reduce the ultimate cost of decommissioning and may also affect the timing by extending the expected recoveries from reservoirs. The estimate is updated at each reporting date. For midstream and downstream assets with indefinite useful lives, the timing of decommissioning may be so distant that the present value of liabilities is not significant. When there is uncertainty about the useful life of the asset, this uncertainty needs to be taken into account in the measurement of the provision. In such cases, it may be that the provision is not significant until the expected date at which the facilities will be decommissioned is less distant. Significant judgement may be required in measuring the provision.
2010 the IASB issued a limited reexposure of the 2005 proposals, which included a focus on the measurement of provisions involving services, e.g. decommissioning. The project currently is inactive, and the IASB will decide whether or how to progress the project when it considers responses to its Agenda Consultation 2011, which are due by 30November 2011.
Timing of recognition
A present obligation that is more likely than not Decommissioning and environmental provisions are covered by IAS 37 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets. Recognition of a provision is required when there is a present obligation and an outflow of resources is probable. Probable is defined as more likely than not. A present obligation can be legal or constructive in nature. For oil and gas companies a legal obligation for decommissioning and remediation often is contained in the licence agreement and related contracts, or in legislation. However, in some countries environmental legislation may be less developed and it may be difficult to determine the extent of the obligation. A constructive obligation may arise from a companys published policies about environmental clean-up or from pastpractices. An obligation to make good damage or dismantle equipment is provided for in full when the damage is caused or the asset installed. This may result in the recognition of additional amounts or earlier recognition of such amounts in IFRS financial statements compared to previous GAAP . When the provision arises on initial recognition of an asset, the corresponding debit is treated as part of the cost of the related asset and is not recognised immediately in profit or loss.
Future developments
The IASB is reviewing accounting for provisions In 2005 the IASB began reviewing the accounting for provisions and an exposure draft was issued, which would have resulted in changes to both the timing of recognition and the measurement of provisions. In
2011 KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG International). KPMG International provides no client services and is a Swiss entity with which the independent member firms of the KPMG network are affiliated.
2011 KPMG IFRG Limited, a UK company, limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
2011 KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG International). KPMG International provides no client services and is a Swiss entity with which the independent member firms of the KPMG network are affiliated.
2011 KPMG IFRG Limited, a UK company, limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
Joint arrangements
The term joint venture is a widely used operational term, although not all such arrangements are joint ventures for accounting purposes. A recently issued standard could significantly impact the accounting Determining whether an arrangement is a joint arrangement
Companies need to review their arrangements to determine whether they should be accounted for as a joint arrangement Joint arrangements are a common way for oil and gas companies to share the risks and costs of exploration and production activities, and come in a variety of forms. Within the sector, the term joint venture is used widely as an all-encompassing operational expression to describe shared working arrangements. However, under IFRS there are strict criteria that must be met in order for joint arrangement accounting to be applied. For an arrangement to be a joint arrangement for accounting purposes there must be a contractual arrangement that gives joint control. Joint control is not determined by economic interest. Control is based on the contractual arrangements and exists when decisions about the relevant activities require the unanimous consent of more than one party to the arrangement. Companies must review their arrangements to determine whether joint control exists. When the company does not have joint control, the arrangement likely will be accounted for as an investment, subsidiary or associate. before the adoption of IFRS 11 Joint Arrangements is governed by IAS 31 Interests in Joint Ventures. There are three classifications of joint venture under IAS 31: jointly controlled entity, jointly controlled asset and jointly controlled operation. Jointly controlled entities A jointly controlled entity is a joint arrangement that is carried out through a separate legal entity. Currently there is an accounting policy choice that applied when accounting for jointly controlled entities. A venturer accounts for its interest using either proportionate consolidation or the equity method. In KPMGs 2008 survey The Application of IFRS: Oil and Gas there was an almost even split between companies applying the equity method and those using proportionate consolidation. Jointly controlled assets and jointly controlled operations Jointly controlled assets and jointly controlled operations are joint ventures that are not separate legal entities. Venturers in jointly controlled assets and jointly controlled operations recognise the assets and liabilities, or share of assets and liabilities, that they control, as well as the costs incurred and income received in relation to that arrangement. definitions of each category differ from those in IAS 31. The classification of arrangements under IFRS 11 is more judgemental and the terms of arrangements and the nature of any related agreements must be considered to determine the classification of the arrangement for accounting purposes. Joint venture A joint venture is a joint arrangement in which the jointly controlling parties have rights to the net assets of the arrangement. Joint ventures include only arrangements that are structured through a separate vehicle (such as a separate company). However, not all joint arrangements that are companies will necessarily be joint ventures. The nature and terms of arrangements need to be reviewed to determine the appropriate classification of the arrangement. The legal form is only one factor to be considered. When the contractual arrangements and other facts and circumstances indicate that the joint venturers have rights to assets or obligations for liabilities of the arrangement, the arrangement will be a joint operation. One circumstance that could indicate that an arrangement is a joint operation is if the arrangement is designed so that the jointly controlled company cannot undertake its own trade, and can only trade with the parties to the joint arrangement. Related agreements and other facts and circumstances also need to beconsidered. A joint venturer will account for its involvement in the joint venture using the equity method in accordance with IAS 28 (2011) Investments in Associates and Joint Ventures. Joint operation A joint operation is an arrangement in which the jointly controlling parties have rights to assets and obligations for
2011 KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG International). KPMG International provides no client services and is a Swiss entity with which the independent member firms of the KPMG network are affiliated.
2011 KPMG IFRG Limited, a UK company, limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
liabilities relating to the arrangement. An arrangement that is not structured through a separate vehicle will be a joint operation; however, other arrangements may also fall into this classification depending on the rights and obligations of the parties to the arrangement. A joint operator recognises its own assets, liabilities and transactions, including its share of those incurred jointly.
2011 KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG International). KPMG International provides no client services and is a Swiss entity with which the independent member firms of the KPMG network are affiliated.
2011 KPMG IFRG Limited, a UK company, limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
Revenue recognition
Oil and gas companies face challenges when applying the revenue recognition requirements under IFRS due to common industry arrangements that can give rise to complex revenue issues
Oil and gas companies reporting under IFRS need to assess whether the risks and rewards of ownership have been transferred in order to determine when to recognise revenue. The determination of when this occurs can present challenges for oil and gas companies. The individual facts and circumstances will need careful consideration as they may vary between contracts. Timing of revenue recognition There is no industry standard as to the timing of the transfer of ownership in oil and gas transactions. The revenue arising from each transaction is recognised based on the terms of the underlying sales agreement. For most transactions involving the sale of physical oil and gas, the contractual terms for the transfer of ownership will be based on the delivery or lifting of production. For example, for crude oil sales generally there are two points at which title could pass from seller to buyer: when the crude oil is lifted from the site of production; or when the crude oil is delivered to the refinery/ storage depot. For petroleum products sold to retail distribution networks, generally revenue is recognised on delivery to service stations. Physical exchange of products The physical exchange of products is common within the oil and gas industry. For example, under crude oil buy/sell arrangements a company agrees to buy a specified quantity and grade of oil to be delivered at a specified location, while simultaneously agreeing to sell a specified quantity and grade of oil at a different location with the same counterparty, generally to facilitate operational requirements. In accordance with IAS 18 Revenue, the swapping of goods or services that are of a similar nature and value is a transaction that does not generate revenue. The nature of the exchange will determine if it is a like-for-like exchange accounted for at book value, or an exchange of dissimilar goods within the scope of IAS 18. The quantum of the balancing payment is one important factor in deciding whether the transaction is a sale and a purchase or a swap of similar products. The more significant the balancing payment is compared to the value of the products being exchanged, the more likely the transaction is to be a swap of dissimilarproducts. Overlift and underlift In many joint arrangements the timing of revenue recognition will coincide with a fixed schedule of lifting, which stipulates when each participant lifts its share of crude oil or gas from the production facility. The practicalities of loading an oil tanker mean that any single lifting can be more or less than a companys entitlement, resulting in an overlift (a lifting in excess of the companys contractual allocation of production) or an underlift (a lifting less than the companys contractual allocation of production). Oil and gas companies need to consider how they account for any overlift or underlift balances, including what measurement base to apply to any resulting asset orliability. it satisfies a performance obligation by transferring control of promised goods or services to a customer. The model was proposed to be applied to all contracts with customers except leases, financial instruments, insurance contracts and non-monetary exchanges between entities in the same line of business to facilitate sales to customers other than the parties to the exchange. The Boards redeliberated the proposals contained in the exposure draft during the first half of 2011 and agreed tentatively to revise a number of aspects of the proposals, including the criteria for identifying separate performance obligations, the guidance on transfer of control, and the measurement of the transaction price, particularly for arrangements including uncertain consideration. The Boards concluded that, although there was no formal due process requirement to reexpose the proposals, it was appropriate to go beyond established due process given the importance of this topic to all entities. A revised exposure draft is expected in the second half of 2011.
Future developments
A new standard on revenue recognition is expected The IASB and the US Financial Accounting Standards Board are working on a joint project to develop a comprehensive set of principles for revenue recognition. An exposure draft published in 2010 proposed a single revenue recognition model in which an entity would recognise revenue as
2011 KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG International). KPMG International provides no client services and is a Swiss entity with which the independent member firms of the KPMG network are affiliated.
2011 KPMG IFRG Limited, a UK company, limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
2011 KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG International). KPMG International provides no client services and is a Swiss entity with which the independent member firms of the KPMG network are affiliated.
2011 KPMG IFRG Limited, a UK company, limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
Reserves reporting
There is no specific IFRS reporting requirement on reserves, although many oil and gas companies include an accounting policy for reserves or a commentary in the critical estimates and judgements note, or in the management discussion and analysis section of the annual report
Oil and gas reserve estimates are critical information in the evaluation of oil and gas companies, and reserves disclosure is an important component of annual reports in the sector. The purpose of reserves reporting is to make available information about the oil and gas reserves controlled by companies in the sector. This is vital in assessing their current performance and future prospects. Despite their importance to both the company and the financial statements, there are no explicit requirements for the disclosure of reserve information in IFRS. Disclosures In the absence of specific guidance, oil and gas companies tend to refer to other requirements, such as those in the US, Canada, Australia and the UK. The nature of reserves estimates is such that, even if all companies provided disclosure based on a single classification, meaningful comparison between companies would be difficult without in-depth analysis of the many assumptions inherent in the coredisclosures. The US Securities and Exchange Commissions rules require any issuer providing disclosure under ASC932235 Extractive Activities Oil and Gas Notes to Financial Statements to continue to provide that disclosure even if the issuer is preparing financial statements in accordance with IFRS. Impact of reserve estimates on financial statement balances While the reporting of reserves data is important in its own right, reserves measures are also used in deriving a number of accounting estimates. In our experience, DD&A calculations usually are based on the unit-ofproduction method and the volume of reserves used in the calculation affects the calculation of the associated DD&A charge. Reserves estimates are a key factor in determining the economic life of an oil field and therefore impact on the calculation of decommissioning and environmental rehabilitation provisions. Impairment calculations include assumptions for reserves. Downward revisions in reserve estimates often represent an indicator of impairment. Reserves are a key input to fair value calculations in accounting for a business combination. Assumptions about future profit potential based on reserves estimates may be the basis for the recognition of deferred tax assets arising from unused tax losses. Because of the impact of reserves information in the financial statements, oil and gas companies typically include some information about reserves in the critical estimates and judgements note to the financial statements.
2011 KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG International). KPMG International provides no client services and is a Swiss entity with which the independent member firms of the KPMG network are affiliated.
2011 KPMG IFRG Limited, a UK company, limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
separately by commodity and by material geographical area; the main assumptions used in estimating reserve quantities, and a sensitivity analysis; and a current value measurement of reserves by major geographical region if historical cost is used to measure E&E assets. Reserve definition respondents views Most respondents agreed with recommendations that industry-based definitions of reserves and resources be used in any future IFRS to set disclosures and complement the accounting requirements. Most also agreed with the PRMS definition. Concerns raised related to the approach for incorporating the definition into any future IFRS. Also, respondents suggested that application guidance may be required to ensure PRMS is appliedconsistently. Concern was also raised over the project teams proposal that reserves estimates be prepared using a market participants assumption of
commodity price. Respondents who commented expressed a preference for a historical price assumption to remove subjectivity. Disclosure proposals respondents views While a majority (63%) of respondents generally agreed with the disclosure objectives, almost all respondents expressed significant concern about the level of granularity of the disclosures proposed. Concern was also raised as to whether the disclosure of reserve quantities should be subject to audit. Some of the proposed disclosures differ from those currently required by some market regulators. Also, additional information may be required in the future if such disclosures are mandated. Therefore, this area is likely to require significant management focus as practice and requirements develop. The importance of reserves reporting and the lack of current guidance led some respondents to support development of disclosure requirements separately, and more urgently, than accounting requirements.
2011 KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG International). KPMG International provides no client services and is a Swiss entity with which the independent member firms of the KPMG network are affiliated.
2011 KPMG IFRG Limited, a UK company, limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
Financial instruments
The conversion process must include a review of the existence, classification and accounting for financial instruments, including derivatives. Future changes in the accounting are expected
Oil and gas companies generally have financial instrument accounting issues owing to the significant commodity price risk that they face and the structures in place to manage this and other exposures such as currency fluctuations. A thorough review of the existence, classification and accounting for financial instruments will be required on conversion. Financial assets and financial liabilities are measured initially at fair value. After initial recognition, loans and receivables and held-to-maturity investments are measured at amortised cost. All derivative instruments are measured at fair value with gains and losses recognised in profit or loss except when they qualify as hedging instruments in a cash flow or net investment hedge. A financial asset is derecognised only when the contractual rights to cash flows from that particular asset expire or when substantially all risks and rewards of ownership of the asset are transferred. A financial liability is derecognised when it is extinguished or when the terms are modified substantially.
Current requirements
Accounting and disclosure requirements may be significantly different from national GAAP Contracts to buy and sell oil and gas and other non-financial items may be included in the scope of the financial instruments standards. There is an exemption for contracts that are held for physical delivery or receipt for the companys expected purchase, sale or usage requirements (the own use exemption). However, specific conditions must be met to apply this exemption, and its applicability should be reviewed carefully. Specific types of oil and gas contracts also commonly contain embedded derivatives that may need to be accounted for separately. For example, gas contracts that are not derivatives themselves may contain embedded derivatives as a result of a pricing mechanism linked to an index other than a gas pricing index. As it currently stands, IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement requires financial assets to be classified into one of four categories: at fair value through profit or loss; loans and receivables; held to maturity; and available for sale. Financial liabilities are categorised as either financial liabilities at fair value through profit or loss or other liabilities.
IFRS9 includes two primary measurement categories for financial assets: amortised cost and fair value. Other classifications, such as held to maturity and available for sale, have been eliminated. The classification and measurement requirements for financial liabilities are generally unchanged other than a change to the treatment of changes in fair value as a result of own credit risk.
2011 KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG International). KPMG International provides no client services and is a Swiss entity with which the independent member firms of the KPMG network are affiliated.
2011 KPMG IFRG Limited, a UK company, limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
IASBs review of financial instruments accounting may result in significant changes in accounting The IASB continues to work on elements of its comprehensive financial instruments project, most notably hedging and impairment. In November 2009 the IASB issued Exposure Draft Financial Instruments: Amortised Cost and Impairment, with supplementary proposals in January 2011 relating to the impairment of financial assets managed
in an open portfolio (the supplement). The supplement proposes to replace the incurred loss approach to impairment of financial assets with an approach based on expected losses. Extensive disclosures were also proposed. The IASB issued Exposure Draft Hedge Accounting in December 2010, proposing significant changes to the current hedge accounting requirements. The proposals were designed to
integrate hedge accounting more closely with risk management policies and objectives. For companies applying hedge accounting to commodity price transactions, the process for assessing hedge effectiveness would change. The proposals also expanded the range of instruments that can be designated as hedged instruments. IASB deliberations on both projects areongoing.
2011 KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG International). KPMG International provides no client services and is a Swiss entity with which the independent member firms of the KPMG network are affiliated.
2011 KPMG IFRG Limited, a UK company, limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
2011 KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG International). KPMG International provides no client services and is a Swiss entity with which the independent member firms of the KPMG network are affiliated.
2011 KPMG IFRG Limited, a UK company, limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
Make amendments such as: new or changed calculations new or changed reports new models.
Implement software in the form of a new software development project or select a package solution. Interfaces may be affected by: modifications made to existing systems the need to collect new data the timing and frequency of data transfer requirements.
2011 KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG International). KPMG International provides no client services and is a Swiss entity with which the independent member firms of the KPMG network are affiliated.
2011 KPMG IFRG Limited, a UK company, limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
Change Consolidation of entities Under IFRS, there is the potential for changes to the number and type of entities that need to be included in the groups consolidated financial statements. For example, the application of the concept of control may be different under IFRS (based on IFRS10 Consolidated Financial Statements from 1 January 2013) and previous GAAP . Reporting packages Reporting packages may need to be modified to: gather additional disclosures in the information from branches or subsidiaries operating on a standard general ledger package; or collect information from subsidiaries that use different financial accounting packages. Financial reporting tools Reporting tools can be used to: perform the consolidation and prepare the financial statements based on data transferred from the general ledger; or prepare only the financial statements based on receipt of consolidated information from the general ledger.
Action Update consolidation systems and models to account for changes in consolidated entities.
Modify reporting packages and the accounting systems used by subsidiaries and branches to provide financial information. Also communicate new requirements to operators of joint ventures.
Modify: reporting tools used by subsidiaries and branches to provide financial information; mappings and interfaces from the general ledger; and consolidation systems based on additional requirements such as segment reporting in some cases.
2011 KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG International). KPMG International provides no client services and is a Swiss entity with which the independent member firms of the KPMG network are affiliated.
2011 KPMG IFRG Limited, a UK company, limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
Potential systems and process impact Identification of accounting differences between information provided by joint arrangement operators and IFRS principles could lead to changes in reporting packages used and central adjustments required. System changes may be required to adjust for accounting policy differences for the compilation of the consolidated financial statements. Clear identification of transactions with out-of-the-ordinary revenue recognition characteristics, such as exchanges of assets. Changes to the mapping of such transactions within accounting systems.
Revenue recognition
2011 KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG International). KPMG International provides no client services and is a Swiss entity with which the independent member firms of the KPMG network are affiliated.
2011 KPMG IFRG Limited, a UK company, limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
Parallel reporting: Timing the changeover from local GAAP to IFRS reporting
Conversion from local GAAP to IFRS will require parallel accounting for a certain period of time. At a minimum, this will happen for one year as local GAAP continues to be reported, but IFRS comparatives are prepared prior to the go-live date of IFRS. Parallel reporting may be created either in the real-time collection of information through the accounting source systems to the general ledger or through top-side adjustments posted as an overlay to the local GAAP reporting system. The manner and timing of processing information for the comparative periods in real-time or through top-side adjustments will be based on a number of considerations: Parallel accounting option in comparative year Parallel accounting through topside adjustments Effect No real-time adjustments to systems and processes will be required for comparative period. Local GAAP reporting will flow through sub-systems to the general ledger, i.e. business as usual. Comparative period will need to be recast in accordance with IFRS, but can be achieved off-line. Migration of local GAAP to IFRS happens on first day of the year in which IFRS reporting commences. Consideration needed for leading ledger in comparative year being local GAAP or IFRS, i.e. which GAAP will management use to run the business. If leading ledger is IFRS in comparative year, then conversion back to local standards is necessary for the usual reporting timetable and requirements. Changes to systems and information may continue to be needed in the comparative year if the IFRS accounting options have not been fully established. Migration to IFRS ledgers needed prior to first day of the year in which IFRS reporting commences. Considerations Less risky for ongoing local GAAP reporting requirements in comparative year. Available for all, but more typical when there is a lower volume of transactions to consider. More applicable to small/less complex organisations or when few changes are required.
Real-time reporting of two GAAPs in comparative year has benefits, but puts more stress on the finance group. Typically used when tracking two sets of numbers for large volume of transactions will make systemisation of comparative year essential. More applicable for large/complex organisations with many changes. Strict control on system changes will need to be maintained over this phased changeover process.
2011 KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG International). KPMG International provides no client services and is a Swiss entity with which the independent member firms of the KPMG network are affiliated.
2011 KPMG IFRG Limited, a UK company, limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
Most major ERP systems (e.g. SAP, Oracle, Peoplesoft) are able to handle parallel accounting in their accounting systems. The two common solutions implemented are the Account solution or the Ledger solution. Depending on the release of the respective ERP systems, one or both options are available for the general ledger solution.
2011 KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG International). KPMG International provides no client services and is a Swiss entity with which the independent member firms of the KPMG network are affiliated.
2011 KPMG IFRG Limited, a UK company, limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
the same data and systems, which will therefore need to change to align with IFRS. One key difference that may remain after transitioning to IFRS is the reporting of reserves and resources. The following diagram represents the possible internal reporting areas that may be affected by changing systems to accommodate the new IFRS reporting requirements.
The process of aligning internal and external reporting typically will involve the following. When mappings have changed from the source systems to the general ledger, mappings to the management reporting systems and the data warehouses also should be changed. When data has been extracted from the source systems and manipulated by models to create IFRS adjustments that are processed manually through the general ledger, the impact of these adjustments on internal reporting should be carefully considered. Alterations to calculations and the addition of new data in source systems as well as the new timing of data feeds could impact key ratios and percentages in internal reports, which may need to be redeveloped to accommodate them.
2011 KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG International). KPMG International provides no client services and is a Swiss entity with which the independent member firms of the KPMG network are affiliated.
2011 KPMG IFRG Limited, a UK company, limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
2011 KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG International). KPMG International provides no client services and is a Swiss entity with which the independent member firms of the KPMG network are affiliated.
2011 KPMG IFRG Limited, a UK company, limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
2011 KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG International). KPMG International provides no client services and is a Swiss entity with which the independent member firms of the KPMG network are affiliated.
2011 KPMG IFRG Limited, a UK company, limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
be set around all key deliverables, including timely IFRS technical partner involvement. The Audit Committee also needs to ensure that the external audit teams have reviewed changes to accounting policies alongside the approval by Audit Committee. Proper planning for new and enhanced internal controls and certification process as part of your IFRS conversion should be considered. Assessment of internal control design for accounting policy management as well as financial close processes are integral and companies need to be aware of the
impact of any manual work-arounds used. Documentation of new policies, procedures and the underlying internal controls will all need to be reflected as part of the IFRS process.
Benefits of IFRS
While the majority of this paper has focused on the micro-based risks and issues associated with IFRS and IFRS conversions, senior management should not lose sight of the macrobased benefits to IFRS conversion. IFRS may offer more global transparency and ease access to foreign capital markets
and investments, and that may help facilitate cross-border acquisitions, ventures and spin-offs. For example, and as a final thought, by converting to IFRS, oil and gas companies should be able to present their financial reports to a wider capital community. If this lowers the lending rate to that company by, say, a quarter of a percentage point for the annuity of the instrument, then the benefits are clearly measurable despite the short-term pain of the finance group through the IFRS conversion process.
2011 KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG International). KPMG International provides no client services and is a Swiss entity with which the independent member firms of the KPMG network are affiliated.
2011 KPMG IFRG Limited, a UK company, limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
2011 KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG International). KPMG International provides no client services and is a Swiss entity with which the independent member firms of the KPMG network are affiliated.
2011 KPMG IFRG Limited, a UK company, limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
Contact us
Global Energy & Natural Resources Practice Global Chairman Michiel Soeting KPMG in the UK T: +44 20 7694 3052 E: michiel.soeting@kpmg.co.uk Global Head of Audit for ENR Jimmy Daboo KPMG in the UK T: +44 20 7311 8350 E: jimmy.daboo@kpmg.co.uk Global Head of Oil and Gas Wayne Chodzicki KPMG in Canada T: +1 403 691 8004 E: wchodzicki@kpmg.ca Regional Oil & Gas Leaders Australia Brent Steedman KPMG in Australia T: +61 8 9263 7184 E: bsteedman@kpmg.com.au Brazil Manuel Fernandes KPMG in Brazil T: +55 (21) 3515 9412 E: mfernandes@kpmg.com.br Canada Michael McKerracher KPMG in Canada T: +1 403 691 8056 E: mmckerracher@kpmg.ca Chile Patrick Hanley KPMG in Chile T: +56 (2) 798 1230 E: phanley@kpmg.com China Peter Fung KPMG in China T: +861085087017 E: peter.fung@kpmg.com France Jacques-Francois Lethu KPMG in France T: +33 1 5568 7037 E: jlethu@kpmg.fr India Kaushal Kishore KPMG in India T: +91 1243074205 E: kaushalkishore@kpmg.com Italy Massimo Maffeis KPMG in Italy T: +39 02 6763 2464 E: mmaffeis@kpmg.it Japan Masahiro Mekada KPMG in Japan T: +81 (6) 7731 6801 E: mmekada@kpmg.com Kazakhstan Asel Khairova KPMG in Kazakhstan T: +7 (727) 3200 157 E: akhairova@kpmg.kz Kuwait Charles Milner KPMG in Kuwait T: +965 247 5090 E: cjmilner@kpmg.com Netherlands Ruben Rog KPMG in The Netherlands T: +31 206 568830 E: rog.ruben@kpmg.nl Norway Mona Larsen KPMG in Norway T: +47 4063 9181 E: mona.larsen@kpmg.no Oman Michael Armstrong KPMG in Oman T: +968 (24) 709181 E: marmstrong@kpmg.com Qatar Gopal Balasubramaniam KPMG in Qatar T: +974 432 9698 E: gopalbala@kpmg.com Russia Boris Lvov KPMG in Russia T: +7 (495) 937 2979 E: blvov@kpmg.ru Saudi Arabia Sashikanth Ramakrishnan KPMG in Saudi Arabia T: +966 (1) 874 8500 E: rsashikanth@kpmg.com South Africa Alwyn Van der Lith KPMG in South Africa T: +27 (11) 647 7395 E: alwyn.vanderlith@kpmg.co.za United Arab Emirates Sharad Bhandari KPMG in the U.A.E. T: +971 (2) 632 3476 E: sbhandari@kpmg.com United Kingdom Anthony Lobo KPMG in the UK T: +44 (0) 20 7311 8482 E: anthony.lobo@kpmg.co.uk United States Regina Mayor KPMG in the US T: +1 713 319 3137 E: rmayor@kpmg.com
2011 KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG International). KPMG International provides no client services and is a Swiss entity with which the independent member firms of the KPMG network are affiliated.
2011 KPMG IFRG Limited, a UK company, limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the authors and reviewers of this publication, including: Pamela Taylor KPMG International Standards Group (part of KPMG IFRG Limited)
www.kpmg.com/ifrs
The information contained herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation. 2011 KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG International), a Swiss entity. Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. No member firm has any authority to obligate or bind KPMG International or any other member firm vis--vis third parties, nor does KPMG International have any such authority to obligate or bind any member firm. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and cutting through complexity are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. Publication name: Impact of IFRS: Oil and Gas Publication number: 314698 Publication date: September 2011