Explorer

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 selected for testing certain controls over long-lived assets that consisted of the issuer's reviews of (1) fixed asset register reconciliations (2) asset status reports and (3) the LOM plans and technical reports developed/compiled by the company's specialists. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owners performed including the procedures to identify items for follow-up and the procedures to determine whether those items were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.44)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of its assessment of long-lived assets for possible impairment including the underlying cash-flow forecasts. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to assess the appropriateness of excluding certain costs from these cash-flow forecasts. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's reviews of its assessment of long-lived assets for possible impairment. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to assess the qualitative factors used to determine whether indicators of possible impairment existed. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

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 evaluate the review procedures that the control owners performed including the procedures to identify items for follow up and the procedures to determine whether those items were appropriately resolved. (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 selected for testing certain controls over the reserve estimates that consisted of the issuer's (1) review of changes to the expected future production volumes (“production profile”) (2) review of key assumptions within the remaining expected production profile estimates (3) assessment of deviations between the expected reserve estimates the company's employed specialists developed and the expected reserve estimates the company's engaged specialist developed (4) review of changes in proved developed and undeveloped reserves (5) review of the proved reserve estimates volumetric inputs in the standardized measure of value and (6) review of the final proved reserve estimates. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain non-financial data the issuer produced and/or the evaluation of the relevance and reliability of certain non-financial data from external sources that was (1) used in developing the reserves production profiles and/or standardized measure of value (2) used in the operation of certain of the above controls and (3) provided to the company's engaged specialist to evaluate the issuer's reserve estimates. (AS 2201.39) · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the reasonableness of the methods and assumptions the company's employed specialists used to develop the reserve estimates. (AS 2201.39) · The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to evaluate the accuracy and completeness of the underlying non-financial data used in developing the reserves production profiles and/or standardized measure of value used in the operation of certain of the above controls. (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 selected for testing certain controls over the reserve estimates that consisted of the issuer's (1) review of changes to the expected future production volumes (“production profile”) (2) review of key assumptions within the remaining expected production profile estimates (3) assessment of deviations between the expected reserve estimates the company's employed specialists developed and the expected reserve estimates the company's engaged specialist developed (4) review of changes in proved developed and undeveloped reserves (5) review of the proved reserve estimates volumetric inputs in the standardized measure of value and (6) review of the final proved reserve estimates. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain non-financial data the issuer produced and/or the evaluation of the relevance and reliability of certain non-financial data from external sources that was (1) used in developing the reserves production profiles and/or standardized measure of value (2) used in the operation of certain of the above controls and (3) provided to the company's engaged specialist to evaluate the issuer's reserve estimates. (AS 2201.39) · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the reasonableness of the methods and assumptions the company's employed specialists used to develop the reserve estimates. (AS 2201.39) · The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to evaluate the accuracy and completeness of the underlying non-financial data used in developing the reserves production profiles and/or standardized measure of value used in the operation of certain of the above controls. (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 selected for testing certain controls over the reserve estimates that consisted of the issuer's (1) review of changes to the expected future production volumes (“production profile”) (2) review of key assumptions within the remaining expected production profile estimates (3) assessment of deviations between the expected reserve estimates the company's employed specialists developed and the expected reserve estimates the company's engaged specialist developed (4) review of changes in proved developed and undeveloped reserves (5) review of the proved reserve estimates volumetric inputs in the standardized measure of value and (6) review of the final proved reserve estimates. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain non-financial data the issuer produced and/or the evaluation of the relevance and reliability of certain non-financial data from external sources that was (1) used in developing the reserves production profiles and/or standardized measure of value (2) used in the operation of certain of the above controls and (3) provided to the company's engaged specialist to evaluate the issuer's reserve estimates. (AS 2201.39) · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the reasonableness of the methods and assumptions the company's employed specialists used to develop the reserve estimates. (AS 2201.39) · The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to evaluate the accuracy and completeness of the underlying non-financial data used in developing the reserves production profiles and/or standardized measure of value used in the operation of certain of the above controls. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the completion of impairment indicator surveys and the issuer's review and approval of impairment calculations and related testing. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to determine the accuracy and completeness of the consolidated impairment indicator questionnaires. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of its assessment of certain long-lived assets for potential impairment including the underlying cash-flow forecasts. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to assess the reasonableness of certain assumptions underlying these cash-flow forecasts. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer used cash-flow forecasts to evaluate whether any impairment indicators existed for certain long-lived assets. The firm selected for testing two controls that consisted of the issuer's reviews of (1) the methodology it used to prepare these cash-flow forecasts and (2) certain of these cash-flow forecasts. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to assess the reasonableness of certain assumptions the issuer used in these cash-flow forecasts. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of its asset groupings used in the evaluation of long-lived assets for possible impairment. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to assess the appropriateness of the specific assets that were included in the asset groupings. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer used an information technology (IT) system to process and record transactions including those related to long-lived assets. In its testing over long-lived assets the firm tested various automated and IT-dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by this IT system. · The firm selected for testing another control over user access that consisted of the periodic review and validation of the appropriateness of the access rights granted to users. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to determine whether the role(s) and related functions assigned to each user were appropriate. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of possible impairment indicators for its finite-lived intangible assets. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owner performed including the procedures to identify items for follow up and the procedures to determine whether those items were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44) 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 firm selected for testing a control that included the issuer's review of possible impairment indicators for property plant and equipment at one of the issuer's subsidiaries. The firm did not evaluate (1) whether the control was appropriately designed to identify the impairment indicators that were present and (2) the review procedures that the control owner performed including the procedures to identify items for follow up and the procedures to determine whether those items were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44) 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 firm selected for testing a control that consisted of management's review of asset summary models including the underlying inputs and assumptions used to value certain long-lived assets. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owners performed including the procedures to identify items for follow up and the procedures to determine whether those items were appropriately resolved. Further the firm did not test any controls over the accuracy and/or completeness of certain information used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

With respect to Long-Lived Assets which was affected by the audit deficiencies related to change management and user access the following additional deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of an assessment of long-lived assets for potential impairment including the underlying cash-flow forecasts. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to assess the reasonableness of the significant assumptions underlying these cash-flow forecasts. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of depreciation expense. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures the control owner performed to assess the appropriateness of the methods the issuer used to calculate depreciation. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer identified indicators of potential impairment related to certain CGUs performed an impairment analysis over those CGUs and recorded an impairment charge. The firm selected for testing a control that included the issuer's review of the assumptions used in the impairment analysis. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to assess the reasonableness of these assumptions. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer had multiple cash generating units ('CGUs'). For one CGU the issuer concluded that there were no indicators of potential impairment. For another CGU the issuer identified indicators of potential impairment performed an impairment analysis and recorded an impairment charge. The firm selected for testing controls over the issuer's evaluation of long-lived assets for possible impairment that included the issuer's reviews of (1) potential indicators of impairment and (2) assumptions underlying the forecasted operating costs capital expenditures and discount rates used in the impairment analysis. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed (1) with respect to potential indicators of impairment related to the first CGU and (2) to assess the reasonableness of the forecasted operating costs capital expenditures and discount rates used in the impairment analysis for the second CGU. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer capitalized certain employee and contractor labor costs to long-lived assets. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the review and approval of contractor labor hours. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to address the accuracy of the contractor labor hours associated with the contractor labor costs capitalized to long-lived assets. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer's policy was to group its property plant and equipment as a single asset group when evaluating its long-lived assets for possible impairment because the cash flows were interdependent. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control over the impairment of property plant and equipment which included the determination of its asset grouping. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to assess whether the issuer's use of a single asset group was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 360 Property Plant and Equipment. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of management's review of certain assumptions used to determine depreciation expense on long-lived assets. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owners performed including the procedures to identify items for follow up and the procedures to determine whether those items were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer exchanged land with an external party during the year. The issuer estimated the fair value of the acquired land based on the nominal value within the agreement and the purchase price of other land during the year (collectively the 'inputs'). The firm selected for testing a control that included a review of accounting and other considerations for this transaction. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to evaluate the relevance of inputs used to estimate the fair value of the acquired land. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing a control over management's review of long-lived assets for potential impairment. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owner performed including the criteria that the control owner used to identify items for follow up and whether those items were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing certain review controls over long-lived assets. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owners performed including the procedures to identify items for follow up and the procedures to determine whether those items were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed the ITGCs area and also identified the deficiency below. The firm selected for testing a control which was affected by the audit deficiencies discussed above that included the issuer's review of certain long-lived assets for possible impairment. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to assess certain indicators of possible impairment. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing controls over the review of the issuer's roll-forward for long-lived assets. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owners performed including the procedures to identify items for follow up and the procedures to determine whether those items were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing certain controls over various reviews of long-lived assets. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owners performed including the procedures to identify items for follow up and the procedures to determine whether those items were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing a control over the review of property and equipment. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to evaluate the reasonableness of depreciation expense. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of management's review of the long-lived assets impairment analysis. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to assess the reasonableness of the significant assumptions used in the impairment analysis. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm also selected for testing certain review controls over long-lived assets and related transactions. The following deficiency was identified: · For a control over impairment testing the firm used the results of its substantive testing as evidence that this control was operating effectively. The firm's procedures did not provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the firm did not directly test the review procedures that the control owner performed. (AS 2201.42 .44 and .B9)

The firm also selected for testing certain review controls over long-lived assets and related transactions. The following deficiency was identified: · For a control over the allocation of purchase price for long-lived assets acquired as a group the firm used the results of its substantive audit procedures as evidence of the effectiveness of the control. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures performed by the control owner to evaluate the methods and assumptions used by the issuer-engaged specialist in the purchase price allocation. (AS 2201.42 .44 and .B9)

The firm also selected for testing certain review controls over long-lived assets and related transactions. The following deficiency was identified: · For a control over useful lives the firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to evaluate the useful lives of the assets. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

As instructed by the principal auditor the firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the review of a list of physical assets that were verified for existence. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owner performed including the procedures to identify items for follow up and the procedures to determine whether those items were appropriately resolved. (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 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 evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to evaluate the (1) reasonableness of the production profiles and (2) appropriateness of the methods used to determine the reserve estimates. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing a control related to management's review and approval of purchases of long-lived assets. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures the control owner performed to review and approve account codes assigned to purchases. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing various controls that consisted of the issuer's reviews of additions to long-lived assets. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to evaluate whether additions were properly capitalized and allocated to the correct asset group. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

During the year the issuer identified events indicating that the carrying value of one of its long-lived assets may not be recoverable and performed an impairment analysis. The firm selected for testing a control that included the issuer's review of the impairment calculation. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to assess the completeness of the asset's carrying value used in the impairment calculation. (AS 2201.42 and .44)