Explorer

The issuer performed a quantitative assessment of impairment of certain long-lived assets and engaged an external specialist to provide information it used to develop an assumption. The firm's approach for substantively testing the impairment of long-lived assets was to test the issuer's process and the firm used an auditor-employed specialist to evaluate the methodology used by the issuer and a significant assumption the issuer developed. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of issuer-produced data used by the issuer to develop a significant assumption used in its quantitative assessment. (AS 1105.10)

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 used an issuer-prepared report to substantively test long-lived assets for possible impairment but did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of this report. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed Long-Lived Assets but did not identify the deficiency below. The issuer engaged external specialists to review and compile technical reports on its mineral reserves and resources (“reserve estimates”) and develop a life-of-mine (LOM) plan for each mining site which were then used in the (1) calculation of depreciation and (2) impairment analysis of long-lived assets. The company's specialists used financial and non-financial data and assumptions prepared by the issuer and/or obtained from external sources to develop the reserve estimates and LOM plans. The firm's approach for substantively testing long-lived assets associated with the issuer's reserve estimates and LOM plans as developed by the company's specialists was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not (1) test the accuracy and completeness of non-financial data prepared by the issuer and (2) evaluate the relevance and reliability of external non-financial data all of which were used by the company's specialist to develop the LOM plan assumptions which were used to compute depreciation expense. (AS 1105.A8a)

The issuer used certain long-lived assets to generate revenue. The firm used information produced by the issuer in its testing of the obsolescence reserve for these assets but did not perform any substantive procedures to test or in the alternative test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain of this information. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not test the accuracy and completeness of estimated operating costs and certain other data that the issuer provided to issuer-engaged specialists for their use in developing certain inputs. (AS 1210.12)

The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's review of its assessment of these assets for possible impairment. The firm did not test the aspects of these controls that addressed the accuracy and completeness of the information used in their operation. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed the Long-Lived Assets area but did not identify certain of the deficiencies below related to this area. The issuer utilized internal specialists (company's employed specialists) including reserve engineers to estimate its proved and expected oil and gas reserves (“reserve estimates”). Proved reserves were used in the calculation of depreciation depletion and amortization of production plants and oil and gas assets and expected reserve estimates were used in the impairment analyses of production plants and oil and gas assets including assets under development. The issuer also engaged an external specialist (company's engaged specialist) to evaluate its proved reserve estimates. 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: · Perform procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain non-financial data the issuer prepared and the company's employed specialists used to develop the reserve estimates; (AS 1105.A8a)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit reviewed these areas and also identified the deficiencies below. The firm used issuer-prepared schedules in its substantive testing of the issuer's (1) assessment of certain long-lived assets for possible impairment and (2) long-lived asset disclosures. The firm did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy of certain data included in these issuer-prepared schedules. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer engaged an external specialist to develop estimates related to certain long-lived assets. The firm's approach for substantively testing this estimate was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test the accuracy and completeness of certain issuer-produced data and evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain data from external sources that the company's specialist used. (AS 1105.A8a)

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 test or test controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain data produced by the issuer and used by the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A8a)

The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's reviews of (1) additions to property plant and equipment (PP&E) and whether those costs were allocated to the appropriate project within the issuer's accounting system and (2) PP&E write-offs and whether those write-offs were appropriately supported and approved. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the completeness of the system-generated reports used in the operation of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

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 selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's reviews of certain issuer-produced data and assumptions used by a (1) company-employed specialist to develop certain inputs and (2) company-engaged specialist to evaluate certain of those inputs. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the completeness of certain reports and the accuracy and completeness of certain other reports used in the operation of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

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 identify and test any controls over the (1) accuracy and completeness of certain issuer-produced data (2) reasonableness of certain assumptions and (3) appropriateness of the methods used by the (1) company-employed specialist to develop certain inputs and (2) company-engaged specialist to evaluate certain of those inputs. (AS 2201.39)

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 test the accuracy and completeness of certain issuer-produced data used by the (1) company-employed specialist to develop certain inputs and (2) company-engaged specialist to evaluate certain of those inputs. (AS 1105.A8a)

For certain CGUs the firm did not sufficiently test the accuracy and completeness of certain data used by the issuer to estimate the CGUs' VIU because its procedures were limited to agreeing the data to certain systems for which the firm did not test information technology general controls. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not test or in the alternative identify and test controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain issuer-produced data used by company-employed specialists to develop certain inputs used in the D&A and VIU calculations. (AS 1105.A8a)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of depreciation expense. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain data used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The firm selected for testing another control that consisted of the issuer's review of fixed assets not being depreciated per the issuer's fixed asset register to identify any assets that should be depreciated. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the data included within the fixed asset register used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The firm used the issuer's fixed asset register in its substantive testing of depreciation expense and accumulated depreciation. The firm did not test or (as discussed above) test controls over the accuracy and completeness of the information included in the fixed asset register. (AS 1105.10)

The firm selected for testing another control that consisted of the issuer's review of manual recalculations of depreciation expense and a comparison of those amounts to the depreciation expense calculated by the issuer's fixed asset register. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain data used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

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 identify and test any controls over the (1) accuracy and completeness of the non-financial data prepared by the issuer (2) relevance and reliability of the non-financial information obtained by the company's specialists (3) reasonableness of the non-financial assumptions and (4) appropriateness of the methods used by the company's specialists. (AS 2201.39)

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 test the accuracy and completeness of the non-financial data prepared by the Issuer and evaluate the relevance and reliability of the non-financial information obtained and used by the company's specialists. (AS 1105.A8a)

For a third asset the firm's approach to evaluate the recoverability of this asset was to test the issuer's process. The issuer engaged two external specialists to develop an estimate that the issuer considered along with other assumptions and information in determining the recoverability of the asset. The firm used the work of the company's specialists as audit evidence. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to test the accuracy and completeness of company-produced data and evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain other data from sources external to the issuer that the company's specialists used to develop the estimate considered by the issuer in determining the recoverability of the asset. (AS 1105.A8a)

The issuer capitalized certain labor costs associated with the development of an asset. The firm used labor hours in its substantive testing of this asset but did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of these labor hours. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer capitalized certain labor costs and external costs associated with the development of this asset. Capitalized labor costs were estimated using a significant assumption. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm used certain issuer-produced reports in its substantive testing of this asset but did not perform any procedures to test or test controls over the accuracy and completeness of these reports. (AS 1105.10)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's reviews of its assessments of long-lived assets for possible impairment. For the second business unit the firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of historical sales data used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer recorded impairments related to certain long-lived assets during the year. The following deficiencies were identified: · The issuer engaged an external specialist to estimate the impairment for certain other long-lived assets. The firm did not perform any procedures to (i) test the accuracy and completeness of issuer-produced information and (ii) evaluate the relevance and reliability of information from external sources that were both used by the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A8a)

The firm did not perform procedures to test or identify and test any controls over the accuracy of certain data included in certain system-generated reports that it used in its substantive procedures over depreciation expense. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not test or test the controls over the accuracy and completeness of data and reports used in its testing of long-lived assets for impairment. (AS 1105.10; AS 2501.11)

The firm selected for testing controls over the review of the issuer's roll-forward for long-lived assets. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of data and schedules that were used in the performance these controls. (AS 2201.39)

The firm selected for testing certain controls over various reviews of long-lived assets. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of data and reports that were used in the performance of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

The firm did not test or test controls over the accuracy and completeness of documents used in testing the transfer of long-lived assets. (AS 1105.10)

The firm selected for testing a control that included management's review of financial statement disclosures related to long-lived assets that were based on a report prepared by an external specialist engaged by the issuer. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the issuer-provided data that the external specialist used to prepare this report. (AS 2201.39)

The firm also selected for testing certain review controls over long-lived assets and related transactions. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of data used in the operation of the control. (AS 2201.39)

The firm also selected for testing certain review controls over long-lived assets and related transactions. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of a certain issuer listing used in the operation of the control. (AS 2201.39)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of management's review of the impairment analysis of long-lived assets. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of a report which included discounted cash flows used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

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 selected for testing certain reserve governance controls that included the issuer's (1) review and verification of the internal and external data including non-financial data future production volumes (“production profiles”) and other relevant data used to determine its reserve estimates (2) evaluation of the appropriateness of its reserve classifications and (3) evaluation of the consistency of its reserve estimates with the results of the review performed by the company's engaged specialists. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not test aspects of the reserve governance controls that (1) addressed the accuracy and completeness of non-financial data produced by the issuer and (2) evaluated the relevance and reliability of non-financial data from external sources used by the control owners in their review of the production profiles. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

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: · Test the accuracy and completeness of the non-financial data prepared by the issuer and used by the company's employed specialists to develop the reserve estimates; (AS 1105.A8a)

The firm selected for testing a control related to management's quarterly review of a long-lived assets schedule intended to assess whether changes in the long-lived assets balances are reasonable. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the long-lived assets schedules used in the operation of the control. (AS 2201.39)

For the remaining asset group the issuer identified events during the year indicating that the carrying value of its long-lived assets for that asset group may not be recoverable and performed an impairment analysis. The firm used an issuer-prepared schedule in its evaluation of the issuer's assessment of those long-lived assets for possible impairment but did not perform any procedures to test the accuracy of certain information in this schedule. (AS 1105.10)

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 perform any substantive procedures to test or in the alternative identify and test controls over the accuracy and completeness of disaggregated asset data used by the issuer in its impairment analysis and determination of amortization expense. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer engaged an external specialist to assist in testing its long-lived assets for impairment. The firm's approach for substantively testing the impairment analyses was to test the issuer's process. The firm used an auditor-employed specialist to assist in testing these analyses. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the work of the auditor-employed specialist and identify that the auditor-employed specialist did not (1) perform procedures beyond reviewing sensitivity analyses prepared by the company's specialist to evaluate the reasonableness of a significant assumption developed by the company's specialist (2) perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of a significant assumption developed by the issuer (3) perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain other significant assumptions because it limited its procedures to comparing these assumptions to historical and recent experience but did not evaluate the significant differences between the assumptions and the historical and recent experience (4) evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain external data the company's specialist used to develop these significant assumptions and (5) test the accuracy and completeness of the issuer-produced information used by the company's specialist and perform additional procedures or request the specialist perform additional procedures to address the issues. (AS 1105.A8a and .A8b; AS 1201.C6 and .C7; AS 2501.16)

During the year the issuer identified indicators of possible impairment for certain long-lived assets and engaged a specialist to determine the fair values of these assets. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair values of these assets was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified: - For both asset groups the firm did not test or in the alternative identify and test controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain issuer-produced data that the company's specialist used. (AS 1105.A8a)

The issuer engaged a specialist to develop significant inputs used to determine the fair value of certain long-lived assets. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not test the accuracy and completeness of certain company-produced data used by the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A8a)

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 test the accuracy and completeness of the data provided by the issuer to the specialist beyond comparing the data to other issuer provided information. (AS 1105.A8a)