Explorer

During the year the issuer identified events indicating that the carrying value of its long-lived assets may not be recoverable and performed an impairment analysis for each project. The firm's approach for testing the impairment of long-lived assets was to test the issuer's process and the firm identified certain of the issuer's locations as “in-scope” locations for purposes of testing long-lived assets for possible impairment. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the issuer's evaluation of long-lived assets for possible impairment. (AS 2201.39)

During the year the issuer identified events indicating that the carrying value of its long-lived assets may not be recoverable and performed an impairment analysis for each project. The firm's approach for testing the impairment of long-lived assets was to test the issuer's process and the firm identified certain of the issuer's locations as “in-scope” locations for purposes of testing long-lived assets for possible impairment. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the impairment of long-lived assets because the firm did not test such assets for possible impairment at certain “in-scope” locations which held a significant portion of the issuer's long-lived assets. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer performed an impairment analysis using one asset group of its long-lived assets. The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer appropriately determined that the one asset group represented the lowest level for which identifiable cash flows are largely independent of the cash flows of other groups of assets in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 360 because it did not consider that the issuer appeared to aggregate the undiscounted cash flows from different groups of assets in the analysis. (AS 2301.08; AS 2810.03)

The issuer performed an impairment analysis using one asset group of its long-lived assets. The firm did not perform substantive procedures beyond reviewing the issuer's impairment analysis to test the valuation of the long-lived assets. (AS 2501.07)

For long-lived assets the following additional deficiency related to the firm's testing of controls were identified: The firm selected for testing a control related to performing an impairment analysis on land. The firm did not perform procedures beyond inquiry to evaluate whether this control could effectively prevent or detect material misstatements. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

During the year the issuer identified events indicating that the carrying value of its long-lived assets may not be recoverable and performed an impairment analysis. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls related to the issuer's evaluation of long-lived assets for possible impairment. (AS 2201.39)

During the year the issuer identified events indicating that the carrying value of its long-lived assets may not be recoverable and performed an impairment analysis. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test long-lived assets for possible impairment. (AS 2301.08)

In performing its substantive testing of customer-relationship finite-lived intangible assets the firm did not appropriately evaluate whether the attrition of certain customers represented events that indicated the assets' carrying value may not be recoverable. (AS 2301.08) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting related to the identification of possible impairment indicators and evaluation of impairment of finite-lived intangible assets and concluded that a material misstatement existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently restated its financial statements to correct this and other material misstatements and the firm revised and reissued its report on the financial statements. In conjunction with its reevaluation of controls over goodwill discussed above the issuer also reevaluated its controls over the identification of possible impairment indicators and evaluation of impairment of long-lived assets. As discussed above the issuer concluded that a material weakness related to goodwill and long-lived assets existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently revised its report on ICFR to reflect this material weakness and the other material weaknesses discussed herein and the firm modified its opinion on the effectiveness of the issuer's ICFR to express an adverse opinion and reissued its report.

In performing its substantive procedures related to the issuer's assessment of the possible impairment of this property plant and equipment the firm did not evaluate the issuer's determination that there were no indicators of potential impairment beyond inquiring of management. (AS 2301.08) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting related to the identification of possible impairment indicators and evaluation of impairment of finite-lived intangible assets and concluded that a material misstatement existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently restated its financial statements to correct this and other material misstatements and the firm revised and reissued its report on the financial statements. In conjunction with its reevaluation of controls over goodwill discussed above the issuer also reevaluated its controls over the identification of possible impairment indicators and evaluation of impairment of long-lived assets. As discussed above the issuer concluded that a material weakness related to goodwill and long-lived assets existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently revised its report on ICFR to reflect this material weakness and the other material weaknesses discussed herein and the firm modified its opinion on the effectiveness of the issuer's ICFR to express an adverse opinion and reissued its report.

The issuer identified certain impairment indicators during the year and prepared an undiscounted cash flow analysis to evaluate its long-lived assets for impairment. The firm did not perform procedures to test the issuer's evaluation of long-lived assets for impairment beyond obtaining and reading the issuer's undiscounted cash flow analysis and a memorandum prepared by the issuer related to its impairment assessment. (AS 2501.07)

The issuer engaged a specialist to develop an accounting estimate that was used to determine the valuation of certain long-lived assets. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the methods used by the company's specialist were appropriate under the circumstances taking into account the requirements of the applicable financial reporting framework. (AS 1105.A8c)

The issuer engaged a specialist to develop an accounting estimate that was used to determine the valuation of certain long-lived assets. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of external data that was used by the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A8a)

The issuer held certain long-lived assets that were recorded at cost and reviewed by the issuer for indicators of potential impairment. The firm did not sufficiently test the valuation of certain of these long-lived assets because the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of information used in the issuer's impairment assessment. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The principal auditor identified certain long-lived assets as a significant account and the existence and valuation of those assets as relevant assertions. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the existence and valuation of these long-lived assets. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not identify and evaluate a departure from IFRS related to the issuer's use of (1) post-tax future cash flows and a post-tax discount rate (2) future cash flows that included cash flows of certain forecasted divestments and (3) for the cash-generating units ('CGUs') of one segment estimated future cash flows occurring subsequent to the expiration of lease contracts that were not reasonably certain of being renewed to estimate the value-in-use ('VIU') of its CGUs to evaluate long-lived assets for impairment which was not in conformity with International Accounting Standard 36 Impairment of Assets. (AS 2810.30)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the valuation of long-lived assets was to test the issuer's process. With respect to the inputs methods and assumptions used in the issuer's VIU and depreciation and amortization rate calculations for one of its segments the following additional deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures beyond inquiry of management to evaluate the appropriateness of an input including taking into consideration the issuer's ability to carry out its stated intentions. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the valuation of long-lived assets was to test the issuer's process. With respect to the inputs methods and assumptions used in the issuer's VIU and depreciation and amortization rate calculations for one of its segments the following additional deficiency was identified: · The firm did not evaluate whether the methods used by the (1) company-employed specialist to develop certain inputs and (2) company-engaged specialist to evaluate certain of those inputs were appropriate under the circumstances taking into consideration the requirements of IFRS. (AS 1105.A8c)

The issuer estimated the VIU of its CGUs to evaluate long-lived assets for impairment. For certain CGUs the firm did not identify and evaluate the significance to the financial statements of the issuer's: - Exclusion of the valuation of land associated with the CGUs in the determination of their carrying amounts rather than including such amounts in the determination in conformity with IAS 36. (AS 2810.30)

The issuer engaged external engineering consultants (“company's specialists”) to review and evaluate the mineral reserves and resources estimates prepared by management which were then used in the development of a life-of-mine (LOM) plan for each site. The company's specialists evaluated the estimated mineral reserves and resources using various methods which included the use of financial and non-financial information data and assumptions that were provided by or obtained from the issuer other specialists and/or external sources. The firm's approach for substantively testing the valuation of long-lived assets was to test the issuer's process. With respect to the evaluation of the LOM plans and reserves estimates by the company's specialists which were then used in the issuer's depreciation expense calculations the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the methods used by the company's specialists were appropriate under the circumstances. (AS 1105.A8c)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the impairment analysis for the second CGU was to review and test management's process. The firm did not sufficiently test the impairment analysis for this CGU because the firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the discount rates and the forecasted operating costs and capital expenditures beyond the first year that the issuer used in the impairment analysis. (AS 2501.09 10 and .11)

The issuer performed an impairment analysis for its long-lived asset groups using estimates of future undiscounted cash flows to evaluate whether the carrying value of each asset group was recoverable. These estimates were based on a weighted average of historical cash flows for each asset group. The firm's approach for substantively testing this analysis was to review and test management's process and for certain asset groups to develop an independent expectation of the estimate. The following deficiencies were identified: • The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of the weighting that the issuer assigned to the historical cash flows including consideration of the significant adverse events that affected the issuer's business during the year beyond concluding that it was reasonable to weigh the more recent results more heavily. (AS 2501.09 .10 and .11;3 AS 2810.03) [This citation refers to AS 2501 Auditing Accounting Estimates which was in effect for this audit. This standard was replaced by AS 2501 Auditing Accounting Estimates Including Fair Value Measurements which became effective for audits of financial statements for fiscal years ending on or after December 15 2020.]

The issuer performed an impairment analysis for its long-lived asset groups using estimates of future undiscounted cash flows to evaluate whether the carrying value of each asset group was recoverable. These estimates were based on a weighted average of historical cash flows for each asset group. The firm's approach for substantively testing this analysis was to review and test management's process and for certain asset groups to develop an independent expectation of the estimate. The following deficiencies were identified: • The firm used certain information from external sources to develop its independent expectations but did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of this information. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The issuer developed undiscounted cash flows to evaluate certain long-lived assets for potential impairment. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of the rates obtained from the external source. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

During the year the issuer identified events indicating that the carrying value of its long-lived assets may not be recoverable. The issuer performed an impairment analysis using forecasted cash flows that it developed using various assumptions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the method used by the issuer to develop its impairment analysis was in conformity with the requirements of FASB ASC Topic 360 because it did not evaluate whether certain assets were (1) assets under development at the time of the impairment analysis and as a result the issuer should have included the carrying value of these assets in its impairment analysis or (2) capital expenditures that would increase the service potential of the long-lived asset group and as a result the issuer should have excluded the cash flows associated with these assets in its impairment analysis. (AS 2501.10)

For the second business unit the firm used historical sales data in its evaluation of the issuer's assessment of long-lived assets for possible impairment. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test or identify and test controls over the accuracy of these data. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not identify and test any controls related to the issuer's evaluation of long-lived assets for possible impairment. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer performed an impairment analysis for an energy-producing asset using projected cash-flow scenarios that were based on possible changes to the revenue contract underlying this asset. The issuer weighted each cash-flow scenario to develop a probability-weighted estimate of the asset's undiscounted cash flows to evaluate whether the carrying value of the asset was recoverable. The firm did not perform procedures to obtain evidence about the reasonableness of the probability weighting assigned to each of the cash-flow scenarios. (AS 2501.11)

The issuer utilized internal specialists (company's employed specialists) including reserve engineers to estimate its oil and gas reserves (“reserve estimates”) which were then used in the (1) calculation of depreciation depletion and amortization and (2) impairment analysis of long-lived assets. The issuer also engaged external reserve engineers (company's engaged specialists) to audit and evaluate its proven reserves on a rotational basis. The firm's approach for substantively testing the reserve estimates was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the reserve estimates because the firm did not: · Evaluate the relevance and reliability of external data used by the company's employed specialists to develop the reserve estimates; (AS 1105.A8a)

The issuer utilized internal specialists (company's employed specialists) including reserve engineers to estimate its oil and gas reserves (“reserve estimates”) which were then used in the (1) calculation of depreciation depletion and amortization and (2) impairment analysis of long-lived assets. The issuer also engaged external reserve engineers (company's engaged specialists) to audit and evaluate its proven reserves on a rotational basis. The firm's approach for substantively testing the reserve estimates was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the reserve estimates because the firm did not: · Evaluate whether the methods used by the company's engaged specialists to develop the reserve estimates were appropriate under the circumstances taking into account the requirements of the applicable financial reporting framework beyond inquiry of the methods used with the company's engaged specialists. (AS 1105.A8c)

The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer considered in its impairment analysis certain impairment indicators including recurring operating losses net losses negative cash flows from operations and cumulative net losses since inception of the issuer. (AS 2501.07; AS 2810.03)

The issuer performed an impairment analysis for certain long-lived assets using discounted cash flow forecasts that included the estimate of total revenues. The estimate of total revenues was also used in determining amortization expense associated with these assets. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of the discount rate used by the issuer in its impairment analysis. Specifically the firm compared the discount rate to the stated rate on the issuer's outstanding debt but did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the stated rate reflected the weighted average cost of capital of the issuer plus a risk premium representing the risk associated with acquiring the asset. (AS 2501.16)

The firm did not identify and evaluate whether (1) the issuer's exclusion of certain assets from its impairment analysis of long-lived assets was appropriate and (2) the issuer's impairment analysis was performed at the appropriate level. (AS 2810.30)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the issuer's impairment analysis for certain long-lived assets was to develop an independent expectation. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not take into account (1) the requirements of certain elements of the applicable financial framework and (2) its understanding of the issuer's process so that its independent expectation considered the factors relevant to the estimate. (AS 2501.21)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the issuer's impairment analysis for certain long-lived assets was to develop an independent expectation. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not perform any procedures beyond inquiring of management to demonstrate that it had a reasonable basis for certain of its assumptions used in its independent expectation. (AS 2501.22)

The issuer engaged an external specialist to assist in the valuation of certain other long-lived assets. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of the company's specialist valuation report and whether the specialist's findings support or contradict the valuation of certain long-lived assets because it did not identify and evaluate that the valuation report was prepared to assess valuation at a date other than year end. (AS 1105.A9)

The issuer engaged a specialist to perform a quantitative assessment to test the recoverability of certain long-lived assets. The firm did not perform procedures to test the valuation of these long-lived assets beyond obtaining a summary of the company's specialist's valuation memorandum. Further the firm did not perform any procedures with respect to its use of the work of the company's specialist as audit evidence. (AS 1105.A1-.A10; AS 2501.07)