Explorer

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)

In testing a long-lived asset the firm identified certain indicators of potential impairment. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the carrying value of the asset was recoverable because it limited its procedures to confirming the terms of the underlying agreement and making inquiries of the issuer. (AS 2501.07)

To substantively test long-lived asset additions the firm selected additions for testing that exceeded a monetary threshold. The firm did not perform any procedures to test the remaining population of long-lived asset additions. (AS 1105.27; AS 2301.08)

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)

The firm did not identify and test any controls over the capitalization of interest costs associated with the construction of certain long-lived assets. (AS 2201.39) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its controls over the capitalization of these interest costs and concluded that a material weakness existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently revised its report on ICFR to reflect this material weakness 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 did not perform any substantive procedures to test the capitalization of interest costs associated with the construction of certain long-lived assets. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's substantive procedures to test depreciation expense for certain long-lived assets consisted of performing analytical procedures. The firm did not assess the reliability of certain data used by the firm to develop the expectations used in these procedures and did not establish an appropriate amount for investigation of certain differences because the amount exceeded materiality. (AS 2305.16 and .20)

The issuer determined that it had a single cash-generating unit ('CGU') based on certain assumptions and grouped certain long-lived assets together at this CGU level for purposes of evaluating these assets for possible impairment. In testing certain long-lived assets for impairment the firm identified evidence that appeared to contradict certain of the issuer's assumptions and to indicate that identifiable cash flows may have been available at a lower level. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate this contradictory evidence because its procedures to test the issuer's assumptions supporting the single CGU determination were limited to inquiring of management inspecting certain information provided by the issuer and reading board minutes. (AS 2501.11; AS 2810.03)

The firm did not perform any procedures to test the appropriateness of the capitalization of certain costs to long-lived assets. (AS 2301.08)

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'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 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: · Evaluate the relevance and reliability of external non-financial data the company's employed specialists used to develop the reserve estimates; (AS 1105.A8a)

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: · Evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions developed by the issuer and the company's employed specialists that were used by the company's employed specialists to develop the reserve estimates; (AS 1105.A8b; AS 2501.16) and

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: · Evaluate whether the methods the company's employed specialists used to develop the reserve estimates were appropriate under the circumstances taking into account the requirements of the applicable financial reporting framework. (AS 1105.A8c)

The issuer reported a loss from operations that did not include a loss recognized on a long-lived asset held for sale that was not a discontinued operation (the 'loss'). The firm did not identify and appropriately address a departure from GAAP related to the issuer's presentation of the loss which was not in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 360 Property Plant and Equipment. (AS 2810.30) Unrelated and prior to our review the issuer reevaluated its presentation of the loss in its consolidated statements of operations and concluded that a material misstatement existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently restated its financial statements and the firm revised and reissued its report on the financial statements. The issuer also reevaluated its controls over financial reporting and concluded that a material weakness existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently revised its report on ICFR to reflect this material weakness and the firm revised its opinion on the effectiveness of the issuer's ICFR to express an adverse opinion and reissued its report.

The issuer used multiple information-technology (IT) systems to initiate process and record transactions related to certain revenue and long-lived assets. The issuer outsourced its IT operations to a third-party service organization including the operation of certain IT automated controls ('ITACs'). The transaction data processed through these IT systems and the IT systems themselves which were maintained by the service organization were owned by the issuer. The firm selected for testing various ITACs over certain revenue and long-lived assets. The firm used the work of the service organization's auditor ('service auditor') as evidence of the design and operating effectiveness of these ITACs whereby the firm provided guidance to the service auditor related to the testing of these ITACs and the firm obtained the service auditor's report which described the service auditor's testing procedures and results. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the design and operating effectiveness of these ITACs because the firm did not identify that the service auditor had not performed procedures to (1) test the design of these ITACs and (2) evaluate program customizations to support the use of a 'test of one' approach to test the operating effectiveness of these ITACs. (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 issuer used multiple IT systems to initiate process and record transactions related to certain revenue and long-lived assets. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm tested ITGCs for these IT systems. The firm selected for testing controls over change management that consisted of (1) the review and testing of planned changes to the IT systems and (2) approval of these changes prior to implementation into the production environment. The firm did not evaluate the specific procedures that the control owners performed to identify evaluate the appropriateness of and approve certain changes made to the IT systems. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer used multiple IT systems to initiate process and record transactions related to certain revenue and long-lived assets. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not test or in the alternative test controls over the completeness of the population of changes that were processed internally by the issuer's IT personnel and that the firm used in its testing of the controls over change management. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer used multiple IT systems to initiate process and record transactions related to certain revenue and long-lived assets. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm tested certain automated and IT-dependent manual controls over certain revenue and long-lived assets that used information from these IT systems. As a result of the deficiencies in the firm's testing of ITGCs discussed above the firm's testing of these automated and IT-dependent manual controls was not sufficient because these controls used information generated by these IT systems. (AS 2201.46)

The firm identified that the issuer's accounting for and presentation and disclosure of certain long-lived assets was not in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 205 Presentation of Financial Statements and FASB ASC Topic 360 Property Plant and Equipment. The firm did not sufficiently accumulate and evaluate the effect of this accounting because it limited its evaluation to assessing the effect on certain financial statement line items and disclosures but did not evaluate certain other financial statement line items and disclosures that were also affected by the same accounting. (AS 2810.10 .17 .30 and .31)

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 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. When evaluating the design of the second control the firm did not evaluate the number of items the control owner reviewed to assess whether it was sufficient to address the risks of material misstatement. (AS 2201.42)

The firm did not identify and test any controls over long-lived assets and depreciation expense. (AS 2201.39)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test certain long-lived assets and depreciation expense. (AS 2301.08)

For certain other long-lived assets the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test these long-lived assets for possible impairment beyond reading an issuer-prepared memorandum. (AS 2301.08)

For certain other long-lived assets the following deficiencies were identified: · The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test these long-lived assets were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because in determining the sample sizes the firm did not take into account tolerable misstatement the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the population. (AS 2315.16 .23 and .23A)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of potential indicators of impairment for its long-lived assets and certain investments. The firm did not evaluate whether the thresholds that the control owner used to identify certain impairment indicators were sufficiently precise to prevent or detect material misstatements. (AS 2201.42)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of potential indicators of impairment for its long-lived assets and certain investments. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and/or completeness of certain data used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer performed a quantitative impairment assessment of certain long-lived assets and investments that had impairment indicators. The firm used certain issuer-produced data in its substantive testing of this impairment assessment but did not test or test any controls over the accuracy of these data. (AS 1105.10)

For another of the issuer's long-lived assets the firm did not evaluate the appropriateness of the issuer's conclusion that an impairment assessment was not required even though an impairment indicator existed for this long-lived asset. (AS 2301.08)

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 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)

During the year the issuer identified that events or changes in circumstances existed indicating that the carrying value of certain long-lived assets may not be recoverable. The firm did not evaluate whether these events or changes in circumstances indicated that the carrying amounts of certain other long-lived assets may not be recoverable. (AS 2301.08)

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. As a result of the deficiencies in the firm's testing of IT general controls the firm's testing of these automated and IT-dependent manual controls was not sufficient. (AS 2201.46)

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 a control over user access that consisted of the validation by the owner or owner's representative of access requests prior to the creation and modification of user access rights. The firm did not test the aspect of the control related to the modification of user access rights to the system. (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)

Deficiency evaluating the reasonableness of assumptions in the issuer's discounted cash flow impairment analysis.

The firm was instructed by the principal auditor to evaluate the reliability of certain external information used by the issuer in its qualitative assessment of impairment of a certain long-lived asset. The firm was unable to evaluate the reliability of this information. Instead the firm compared the information used by the issuer to other information independently obtained by the firm that it believed was comparable to information used by the issuer. The firm however did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reliability of the information it independently obtained. Further the firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the relevance of this information beyond one consideration. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

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 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 evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions developed by the issuer and the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A8b; AS 2501.16)

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 procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain components of other significant assumptions developed by the issuer and used by the company's specialist. (AS 2501.16)

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 beyond inquiry to evaluate whether the methods used by the company's specialist were appropriate under the circumstances. (AS 1105.A8c)

The firm did not identify and test any controls over the identification of impairment indicators with respect to property plant and equipment ('PP&E'). Further the firm did not identify and test any controls over the determination of depreciation expense related to certain PP&E. (AS 2201.39)

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.

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.