Explorer

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)

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 asset-related disclosures in the financial statements the firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy of reports and schedules used in the operation of the control beyond testing one control over the useful life data discussed above. (AS 2201.39)

The firm did not identify and test any controls over the issuer's classification of certain long-lived assets. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer used multiple information-technology (IT) systems to initiate process and record long-lived assets and related transactions including certain systems maintained by external service organizations. In its testing of controls over long-lived assets the firm tested various automated and IT-dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by these IT systems. As a result of the following deficiencies in the firm's testing of IT general controls (ITGCs) over certain of these IT systems the firm's testing of these automated and IT-dependent controls was not sufficient. (AS 2201.46)

The issuer used multiple information-technology (IT) systems to initiate process and record long-lived assets and related transactions including certain systems maintained by external service organizations. In its testing of controls over long-lived assets the firm tested various automated and IT-dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by these IT systems. With respect to user access: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the approval of access for new employees to these IT systems. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer used multiple information-technology (IT) systems to initiate process and record long-lived assets and related transactions including certain systems maintained by external service organizations. In its testing of controls over long-lived assets the firm tested various automated and IT-dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by these IT systems. With respect to user access: · The firm did not perform procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain system-generated reports used in the firm's testing of access for active and terminated employees to certain of the issuer's IT systems. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer used multiple information-technology (IT) systems to initiate process and record long-lived assets and related transactions including certain systems maintained by external service organizations. In its testing of controls over long-lived assets the firm tested various automated and IT-dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by these IT systems. With respect to user access: · The firm selected for testing a review control designed to ensure that access levels are appropriate. The firm did not evaluate the specific procedures performed by the control owners to evaluate whether access continued to be appropriate. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer performed a qualitative assessment of certain long-lived assets for impairment. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate whether the issuer considered certain relevant events or changes in circumstances in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 360 Property Plant and Equipment including certain of the issuer's disclosures in the financial statements that indicated that the carrying value of the long-lived assets may not have been recoverable. (AS 2810.03 and .30)

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 firm did not identify and test any controls over the issuer's review of long-lived assets for indicators of potential 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 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 engaged specialists 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 company's specialists used financial and non-financial data and assumptions deemed significant by the firm to develop the reserve estimates in the reserve report. The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review and approval of the final reserve estimates provided by the company's specialists. The firm did not identify when testing the design of this control that the control owners did not (1) evaluate the reasonableness of the non-financial assumptions developed by the issuer and/or the company's specialists and used by the company's specialists to develop the reserve estimates and (2) evaluate the appropriateness of the methods used by company's specialists to develop the reserve estimates. (AS 2201.42)

The issuer engaged specialists 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 company's specialists used financial and non-financial data and assumptions deemed significant by the firm to develop the reserve estimates in the reserve report. The firm's approach for substantively testing the reserve estimates was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of the significant non-financial assumptions developed by the issuer and/or the company's specialists and used by the company's specialists to develop the reserve estimates. (AS 1105.A8b; AS 2501.16) • The firm did not evaluate whether the methods used by the company's 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 specialists. (AS 1105.A8c)

The issuer engaged specialists 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 company's specialists used financial and non-financial data and assumptions deemed significant by the firm to develop the reserve estimates in the reserve report. The firm's approach for substantively testing the reserve estimates was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of the significant non-financial assumptions developed by the issuer and/or the company's specialists and used by the company's specialists to develop the reserve estimates. (AS 1105.A8b; AS 2501.16) • The firm did not evaluate whether the methods used by the company's 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 specialists. (AS 1105.A8c)

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 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 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 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 the reasonableness of the production profiles which were considered significant assumptions by the firm developed by the company's employed specialists and used to develop the reserve estimates; (AS 1105.A8b)

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)

Long-lived assets were assessed as having a significant risk. The firm relied on control testing performed by management to assess the operating effectiveness of certain controls over long-lived assets. A member of management who performed the control testing was also the control owner of the controls selected for testing. The firm did not evaluate the objectivity of the member of management who performed the control testing and whether its reliance on management's control testing work was appropriate. (AS 2201.18; AS 2605.10)

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 a control related to management's review and approval of purchases of long-lived assets. The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed the completeness of the purchase invoices used in the operation of the control. (AS 2201.39)

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)

The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate certain indicators of potential impairment that existed at year end. (AS 2301.08; AS 2810.03)

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)

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)

For all but one of the issuer's asset groups the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate certain indicators of potential impairment that existed at year end. (AS 2301.08 and .11; 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 perform any substantive procedures beyond inquiry of management and reading an issuer-prepared memorandum to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions underlying estimated total revenues including taking into account factors affecting the issuer's intent and ability to carry out those assumptions. (AS 2501.16 and .17)

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 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 firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether there were indicators of potential impairment for certain long-lived assets and right of use assets beyond reading the issuer's impairment policy. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer engaged a specialist to determine the fair value of certain long-lived assets for use in the issuer's impairment analysis. The firm did not evaluate the following assumptions underlying the expected future cash flows that the issuer provided to the specialist: (1) the revenue gross profit margin and operating expense projections beyond the first year and (2) the period of the expected future cash flows which was different from the remaining estimated useful life of the assets. Further the firm did not evaluate the effects of the negative contribution margin in the current year on the operating expense projections. (AS 1210.12; AS 2810.03)

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 test whether the issuer compared the fair value of each asset group to the carrying value of each asset group in determining that none of the asset groups were impaired. (AS 2301.08)

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)

The issuer capitalized expenditures for a long-lived asset. The firm selected certain additions for testing but did not perform any procedures to determine whether these additions qualified for capitalization including for one selection evaluating contradictory evidence in the work papers. (AS 2301.08; AS 2810.03)

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 one asset group the firm did not evaluate whether the significant assumptions developed by the company's specialist were consistent with relevant information. (AS 1105.A8b)

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 another asset group the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions developed by the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A8b)

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 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 evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain data from external sources used by the company's specialist. (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 perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions developed by the company's specialist and the issuer. (AS 1105.A8b; AS 2501.16)

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 evaluate whether the methods used by the company's specialist were appropriate under the circumstances taking into account the requirements of IFRS. (AS 1105.A8c)

The principal auditor instructed the firm to test certain controls over long-lived assets that consisted of the issuer's monthly reconciliation of certain accounts and monthly and quarterly reviews of accrued capital expenditures. The number of items selected for testing did not provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence that the controls were operating effectively because the firm did not test the number of items that it determined necessary. (AS 2201.46)

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)

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 did not identify and appropriately address the issuer's omission of certain required disclosures. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

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)