Getting Full Value From Reserves Audits

摘要

Most oil and gas companies retain consulting firms to conduct “independent audits” of a portion of their annual reserves disclosures. Processes are loosely based on financial audits, but there can be significant differences. Reserves are estimated marketable quantities and values of oil and gas resulting from a defined development plan. The process that examines the standards, controls and procedures applied to prepare these estimates can take several forms: 1) a “reserves evaluation” is a full independent study using raw data, 2) a “reserves audit” employs sufficient tests of the client’s evaluations to provide an opinion that results are free from material misrepresentations, 3) in a “reserves review”, the auditor assesses the “plausibility” of results based principally on staff interviews, and 4) a “reserves process audit” critically examines the overall procedures and controls applied by the company. Regulatory disclosures are usually confined to a subset of the total resource assessments used for i nternal project planning. For example, the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) guidelines restrict disclosures to Proved reserves and this may be the only estimate provided by audit firms. It is recommended to specify a full reserves and resource audit using a combination of Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) and SEC guidelines. Results can then be used to validate a single assessment that supports both disclosures and internal planning. Many authors contend that full evaluations by an external consulting firm should form the basis of all reserves disclosures. Critical analysis of alternative reserve assessment work flows challenges this approach. The preferred model places third party evaluations in the context of a total quality assurance and control process managed by an internal but independent, corporate Resource Management group. The project team responsible for a property’s development is best positioned to forecast production (reserves) and cash flow (value) scenarios. However, to protect against internal bias, a second, independent opinion may be sought. Given the major uncertainties involved, it is not unusual to obtain significantly different interpretations. Assessments can be improved by engaging the teams in a discussion of their assumptions and interpretations. This process model gets full value from reserves audits.