The Modernization of Oil and Gas Reporting, which was released on December 31, 2008 by the SEC, updates the full cost accounting and reserve reporting rules for public oil and gas companies.  The new reporting standards are intended to provide investors with more meaningful and comparable information to help them evaluate the value of oil and gas companies.

One of the new requirements is the use of a 12-month average price in estimating reserves and for full cost accounting purposes, except where prices are defined by contractual agreement. The average is calculated as the unweighted average of the price on the first day of each month within the 12-month reporting period.

Other changes relate to the definitions of proved, developed, and undeveloped reserves, as well as the disclosure of probable and possible reserves, as defined.

Public companies must adopt the new reporting requirements for fiscal years ending on or after December 31, 2009. For private companies, the SEC has stated its intention to coordinate with the FASB align their accounting standards with the new public company rules. As a result, early adoption is not permitted to allow time for the FASB to make the appropriate revisions.

We got the following question from one of our clients: “Is there any benefit to switching from full cost to successful efforts?”

Under successful efforts accounting, a company only capitalizes exploration, acquisition, and development costs that directly result in proved reserves. Exploration costs and costs of unsuccessful projects are expensed as incurred.

Full Cost accounting requires a company to capitalize all costs related to the exploration, acquisition, and development of oil and gas reserves. The full cost method allows a company to capitalize these expenditures into a cost center and amortize those costs as the reserves are produced. A “ceiling” is established for these costs centers to ensure that these costs are recoverable through production. Because the primary component of the ceiling calculation is discounted future net revenues at year-end prices, impairment expenses will increase as oil and gas prices decrease.

Full cost accounting results in much larger cost centers, therefore DD&A and impairment expenses will be greater than for companies that utilize the successful efforts method. However, successful efforts companies will record significant exploration expenses as these costs are incurred.

Changing from one method to another would be a change in accounting principle and require a restatement of the prior year financial statements, which becomes more and more difficult the longer a company has owned its properties.  A conversion would require a substantial amount of resources, especially from full cost to successful efforts because of the detail involved. A change of this type should be carefully considered in light of the facts and circumstances specific to your company.

In the environment of oil and gas operations where the revenue and expense decks keep growing, how do you know if the operator is giving you your fair share? Joint operating agreements generally have an audit provision. Whether or not you should invest in the cost of a joint interest audit depends on several factors including:

• Do I have a large interest in this well?
• Do the joint interest billings look unusual or not provide detail?
• Are the costs well over budgeted or reasonable amounts?
• Are there several wells in the same area that have similar names but different ownership percentages?
• Are there carried interest provisions in the agreement?
• Is the overhead based on actual costs rather than an agreed upon rate?

The number of transactions processed by the operator can lead to data entry or allocation errors. While many of the occurrences mentioned could happen within normal operations, they could also be erroneous charges or calculations.

The scope of a joint interest audit can include expenditure testing, payout recalculation for carried interests, revenue allocation, overhead charge analysis, review of classification of expenditures as direct costs versus overhead, and more.

You may not have the resources to provide the time necessary to perform and follow-up on a joint interest audit. A consultant can be hired to perform these services for you. While you incur the cost of a joint interest audit, the returns often exceed the cost.

Feel free to contact us if you would be interested in pursuing a joint interest audit or have any questions concerning the audit process.

Accounting standards require that the fair value of a liability for an asset retirement obligation (ARO) be recognized in the period in which it is incurred if a reasonable estimate of fair value can be made. With rising costs and environmental concerns in the oil and gas industry, estimates of plugging and abandonment could become more significant than in the past. The important components of calculating the asset retirement obligation for an individual well are shown in the following example:

Example:

The asset and liability are recorded at $25,675 at the spud date. The accretion expense and related liability are recorded monthly for the life of the well. Salvage value of the asset is also not allowed to be netted for purposes of determining estimated costs.

See accounting statement for illustrative examples of calculating the asset retirement obligation.  More on settling AROs to come. Read the rest of this entry »

The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) revised the business combination rules effective for periods beginning after December 15, 2008.  For calendar year entities, any purchase transaction in 2009 will be accounted for under FASB Statement 141(R).

Under current practice, business combinations are accounted for under a cost-accumulation approach, which focuses on the costs paid to acquire the business.  The new standard uses a fair value approach based on marketplace information and exit prices to value assets and liabilities of the acquired business.  In addition, the new standard revises the guidance on accounting for contingencies, restructuring costs, and transaction costs among others.

The new method of recognition could lead to very different results in reporting business combinations:

• actual gain might be recorded on purchase
• subsequent adjustments due to changes in fair value flow through the income statement
• recognition of goodwill attributable to the noncontrolling interest
• retroactive recording of adjustments made during the measurement period to the transaction date

If you have questions on a transaction, let us know.  How will the new rules change the way you consider business combinations?  Give us your thoughts in a comment.