Previous

The successful efforts method reflects the volatility that is inherent in exploring for oil and gas reserves. Those favouring successful efforts accounting argue that this method reflects the inherent risks and volatility that exist in the extractive industries because costs of unsuccessful efforts are charged to expense as they occur. They maintain that the capitalisation of unsuccessful exploratory efforts and their subsequent depreciation as unrelated reserves are produced would result in income smoothing that hides that volatility. Such capitalisation not only distorts the balance sheet by including as assets costs that have no future benefits, it also distorts the statement of profit and loss by deferring to future periods expenses that are incurred in the current period. Income smoothing results in the reporting of an artificial income both when the costs are deferred and throughout the periods of depreciation.

The successful efforts method is consistent with the concept of matching according to which expenses are recognised in the statement of profit and loss on the basis of a direct association between the costs incurred and the earning of specific items of income. However, the application of the matching concept does not allow the recognition of items in the balance sheet, which do not meet the definition of assets and liabilities.

Under the successful efforts method, the propriety of carrying forward costs incurred and subsequently matching them against future revenues depends on whether a specific cost can be identified with specific reserves. If this direct relationship does not exist, the cost should be charged to expense. If a direct association does not exist between a non-productive cost and reserves found and developed, the cost should not be classified as an asset because it is deemed to not provide future benefits in the form of cash flows. Charging non-productive costs to expense is consistent with the Framework - costs that do not result directly in future benefits are properly charged to expense. If costs related to unsuccessful ventures are not charged to expense, both current and future financial statements are distorted because those costs must eventually be removed from the balance sheet and reported in the statement of profit and loss even though they contribute nothing to future revenues.

Successful efforts accounting comes closer than other cost-based accounting methods to reflecting management's successes or failures in its efforts to find new oil and gas reserves. If costs of unsuccessful exploration and development activities are capitalised rather than expensed, and carried forward and combined with costs incurred in prior years and with costs of the current year's successful activities, the efficiency and effectiveness of management is not evaluated in the statement of profit and loss because of the income smoothing that results. Under successful efforts accounting, this income smoothing is greatly reduced or eliminated.

Arguments against the Successful Efforts Method

Under the successful efforts method, the statement of profit and loss can give a false impression of performance in terms of success in finding new oil and gas reserves because of the effect of decisions to expand or curtail exploration expenditure. A reduction in exploration expense resulting from the curtailment of likely exploration would increase reported net profit in the years in which the exploration is cut back, even though because of the cutback in exploration few or no new reserves are added. The cutback in reserve additions and the continuation of production results in a depletion of the enterprise's reserves, the source of its future profits and its long-run success. On the other hand, an enterprise with an outstanding exploration programme may increase its expenditures for exploration. This would almost certainly increase the current charges to expense for unsuccessful exploration efforts, reducing reported profit, even though the increased exploration may result in the addition of many new reserves that will produce future profits. Those who favour successful efforts accounting reply to this argument by observing that the goal of accounting is to reflect faithfully economic events. If management curtails exploration, this will be reflected in the financial statements under successful efforts accounting. Proponents of successful efforts accounting argue that perhaps, supplemental information about reserve quantities and value is needed to indicate success or failure of exploration activity.

Because of the charge-off of unsuccessful pre-production costs, successful efforts accounting often results in an understatement of assets and net income of a growing enterprise that has a successful and increasing exploration programme. In future years, when the exploration programme has stabilised or is actually decreasing, the deductions for unsuccessful projects will decrease or will become stable, resulting in higher reported net income. The understatement of income during the early years of the enterprise's activities may make it difficult to secure funds from either equity issues or borrowings.

The successful efforts method assesses success or failure too early in a project. Success or failure of exploration projects usually cannot be measured until the exploration activities are completed, which may involve many years. In the intervening years, decisions must be made about costs to be charged to expense and costs to be capitalised. These decisions are often subjective until the ultimate outcome is known, and different individuals will assess the same circumstances differently. This subjectivity from incomplete knowledge will result in different reported net income depending on the judgement of those making the assessment.

The successful efforts method fails to recognise that in an E&P enterprise, management makes its plans and allocates resources to its search for new reserves on an enterprise-wide basis. The successful efforts method forces the costs of unsuccessful projects to be expensed even though they are an expected part of an exploration programme. The goal of exploration is to add new reserves and management knows that there will be failures in the process of attaining this goal. Management realises that costs of the failures must be offset by the results from successful ventures. Thus, they argue, costs of unsuccessful pre-production projects should be viewed as part of the cost of reserves obtained through successful exploration projects. Some argue that successful efforts accounting fails to recognise that all pre-production costs are incurred to find and develop whatever reserves result from pre-production activities.

Under the full cost method, all costs incurred in prospecting, acquiring mineral interests, exploration, and development, are accumulated in large cost centres that may not be related to geological factors. The cost centre, under this method, is not normally smaller than a country except where warranted by major difference in economic, fiscal or other factors in the country. The capitalised costs of each cost centre are depreciated as the reserves in each cost centre are produced.

Arguments in favour of the Full Cost Method

The full cost method reflects the way in which enterprises search for, acquire, and develop mineral resources. These activities are carried out in diverse locations, using various techniques and it is accepted that some projects will not result directly in the addition of reserves. However, it is planned that the value added by the successful ventures in a cost centre will be greater than the losses resulting from unsuccessful ventures in that cost centre and will result in an overall profit in the long term. Under the full cost method, all costs incurred at any time and at any place in a cost centre in an attempt to add commercial reserves are an essential part of the cost of any reserves added in that cost centre. As a result they are directly associated with the enterprise's reserves in that centre and all the costs should be treated as part of the cost of the mineral assets in the cost centre.

The full cost method provides better matching of income and expenses. It is argued that there is a better matching of income and expenses if total costs are depreciated on a pro-rata basis as the total reserves in a large cost centre are produced than there would be if reserves and costs are matched in many small cost centres. In periods when an enterprise using successful efforts accounting incurs large pre-production expenditures in seeking new reserves, those costs that do not result in new reserves will be charged to expense, reducing profit and possibly resulting in a loss. The variability in profit resulting from changes in the expensing of pre-production costs are eliminated under the full cost method.

The full cost method is like absorption costing for manufactured inventories. Oil and gas reserves are similar to a long-term inventory item. Generally, inventories are accounted for on an absorption cost basis. The costs related to unsuccessful efforts are very similar to normal recurring spoilage occurring in manufacturing operations. It is customary to treat normal spoilage costs as part of the cost of the good units manufactured.

The full cost method avoids distortions of reported earnings Users of financial statements in the E&P industry are interested primarily in earnings and changes in earnings from year to year. It is argued that, if successful efforts accounting is used, distortions are caused by expensing unsuccessful efforts to find and develop new reserves, which may vary widely from year to year. Under the full cost method, these annual 'distortions' of income resulting from expensing the charges for unsuccessful pre-production activities are eliminated.

Arguments against the Full Cost Method

Under the full cost method, many costs that are capitalised fail to meet the definition of 'asset' under the 'Framework for the Preparation and Presentation of Financial Statements'. Unsuccessful prospecting costs, unsuccessful exploration costs, the costs of properties that contain no oil and gas reserves, and many other costs that will be capitalised are known to provide no future economic benefits. They will not contribute to the production of goods or services to be sold by the enterprise, they cannot be exchanged for other assets, they cannot be used to settle a liability, and they cannot be distributed to the owners of the enterprise. Further, Accounting Standard (AS) 2, 'Valuation of Inventories', requires that "abnormal amounts of wasted materials, labour, or other production costs" should be excluded from the cost of inventories and recognised as expenses in the period in which they are incurred (paragraph 13).

The full cost method delays loss recognition. Expenses should be reported on a timely basis. Costs that do not result directly in future benefits are costs that are properly charged to expense. Capitalising such costs results in deferring the effects of expenses.

The full cost method impedes measurement of the efficiency and effectiveness of the enterprise's exploration and development activities. Costs of unsuccessful activities are treated in the same way as successful activities and are matched against future revenues from all of the enterprise's successful exploration and development activities. In any given year, management may conduct exploration and development activities that are completely unsuccessful, yet the statement of profit and loss would not reveal this fact.

On an overall consideration, the advantages of the successful efforts method far outweigh its disadvantages particularly keeping in view its conceptual superiority over the full cost method. Accordingly, the successful efforts method is recommended to be the preferred method, though an enterprise is permitted to follow the full cost method. The application of these methods is discussed hereinafter.

Under the successful efforts method, in respect of a cost centre, the following costs should be treated as capital work-in-progress when incurred:

1. All acquisition costs;
   
    

2. Exploration costs referred to in paragraph 9 (iv) and (v); and
   
    

3. All development costs.

All costs other than the above should be charged as expense when incurred.

When a well is ready to commence commercial production, the costs referred to in paragraph 36 (ii) and (iii) corresponding to proved developed oil and gas reserves should be capitalised as 'completed wells' from capital work-in-progress to the gross block of assets. With respect to costs referred to in paragraph 36 (i), the entire cost should be capitalised from capital work-in-progress to the gross block of assets. There is a rebuttable presumption that a well is ready to commence commercial production within two years from the establishment of proved developed oil and gas reserves. If the well is not ready for commercial production within the aforesaid period, the relevant costs included in capital work-in-progress should be capitalised on the expiry of the aforesaid period of two years.

If the cost of drilling exploratory well relates to a well that is determined to have no proved reserves, then such costs net of any salvage value are transferred from capital work-in-progress and charged as expense as and when its status is decided as dry or of no further use. Costs of exploratory wells-in-progress should not be carried over for more than a period of two years from the date of completion of drilling unless it could be reasonably demonstrated that the well has proved reserves and development of the field in which the well is located has been planned with required capital investment such as development wells, pipelines, etc., in which case the costs of the exploratory well can be carried forward without any time limit.

Depreciation (Depletion) is calculated, using the unit of production method. The application of this method results in oil and gas assets being written off at the same rate as the quantitative depletion of the related reserve. For the properties or groups of properties containing both oil reserves and gas reserves, the units of oil and gas used to compute depletion are converted to a common unit of measure on the basis of their approximate relative energy content, without considering their relative sales values (general approximation is 1000 cubic meters of gas is equivalent to 1 metric tonne of oil). Unit-of-production depletion rates are revised whenever there is an indication of the need for revision but atleast once a year. These revisions are accounted for prospectively as changes in accounting estimates, i.e., a change in the estimate affects the current and future periods, but no adjustment is made in the accumulated depletion applicable to prior periods.

The depreciation charge or the UOP charge for the acquisition cost within a cost centre is calculated as under:

UOP charge for the period = UOP rate x Production for the period

UOP rate = Acquisition cost of the cost centre / Proved Oil and Gas Reserves

The depreciation charge or the Unit of Production (UOP) charge for all capitalised costs excluding acquisition cost within a cost centre is calculated as under:

UOP charge for the period = UOP rate x Production for the period

UOP rate = Depreciation base of the cost centre / Proved Developed Oil and Gas Reserves

Depreciation base of the cost centre should include

1. Gross block of the cost centre (excluding acquisition costs)
   
    

2. Estimated dismantlement and abandonment costs net of estimated salvage values pertaining to proved developed oil and gas reserves

and should be reduced by the accumulated depreciation and any accumulated impairment charge of the cost centre.

'Proved Oil and Gas Reserves' for the purpose of paragraph 41 comprise proved oil and gas reserves estimated at the end of the period as increased by the production during the period. 'Proved Developed Oil and Gas Reserves' for the purpose of paragraph 42 comprise proved developed oil and gas reserves estimated at the end of the period as increased by the production during the period. Additional reserves from advanced recovery techniques are to be considered as proved developed oil and gas reserves only after the required investments have been capitalised.

Under the full cost method, in respect of a cost centre, the following costs should be treated as capital work-in-progress when incurred:

1. All acquisition costs;
   
    

2. All exploration costs; and
   
    

3. All development costs.

All costs other than the above should be charged as expense when incurred.

When any well in a cost centre is ready to commence commercial production, the costs referred to in paragraph 45 above corresponding to all the proved oil and gas reserves in that cost centre should be capitalised from capital work-in-progress to the gross block of assets. In respect of oil and gas reserves proved subsequently, the capital work-in-progress corresponding to such reserves should be capitalised at the time when the said reserves are proved. The expenditure which does not result in discovery of proved oil and gas reserves should be transferred from capital work-in-progress to the gross block of assets as and when so determined.

The depreciation should be calculated on the capitalised cost according to the unit of production method as explained in paragraph 40 above. In case of full cost method, the depreciation charge or the unit of production (UOP) charge for all costs within a cost centre is calculated as under:

UOP charge for the period = UOP rate x Production for the period

UOP rate = Depreciation base of the cost centre / Proved Oil and Gas Reserves

The depreciation base of the cost centre should include

1. Gross block of the cost centre;
   
    

2. The estimated future expenditure (based on current costs) to be incurred in developing the proved oil and gas reserves referred to in paragraph 50;
   
    

3. Estimated dismantlement and abandonment costs net of estimated salvage values for facilities set up for developing the proved oil and gas reserves referred to in paragraph 50;

and should be reduced by the accumulated depreciation and any accumulated impairment charge of the cost centre.

'Proved Oil and Gas Reserves' for this purpose comprise developed and undeveloped oil and gas reserves estimated at the end of the period as increased by the production during the period.

Production costs, mentioned in paragraph 13 above, become part of the cost of oil and gas produced, along with depreciation (depletion) of capitalised acquisition, exploration and development costs.

The cost of acquiring or constructing support equipment and facilities used in E&P activities should be capitalised in accordance with Accounting Standard (AS) 10, 'Accounting for Fixed Assets'. Depreciation on such equipment and facilities should be arrived at in accordance with Accounting Standard (AS) 6, 'Depreciation Accounting', and accounted for as exploration cost, development cost or production cost, as may be appropriate.

Abandonment costs are the costs incurred on discontinuation of all operations and surrendering the property back to the owner. These costs relate to plugging and abandoning of wells, dismantling of wellheads, production and transport facilities and to restoration of producing areas in accordance with license requirements and the relevant legislation.

The full eventual liability for abandonment cost net of salvage values should be recognised at the outset on the ground that a liability to remove an installation exists the moment it is installed. Thus, an enterprise should capitalise as part of the cost centre the amount of provision required to be created for subsequent abandonment. Charge for abandonment costs should not be discounted to its present value. The provision for estimated abandonment costs should be made at current prices considering the environment and social obligations, terms of mining lease agreement, industry practice, etc.

No gain or loss should be recognised if only an individual well or individual item of equipment is abandoned as long as the remainder of the wells in the cost centre continue to produce oil or gas. Instead, the asset being abandoned be deemed to be fully depreciated. When the last well on the cost centre ceases to produce and the entire cost centre is abandoned, gain or loss should be recognised.

Capitalisation of borrowing costs under the full cost method as well as the successful efforts method should be carried out in accordance with the Accounting Standard (AS) 16, 'Borrowing Costs'. For the purpose of AS 16, all the costs that are classified under capital work-in-progress should be considered as the qualifying asset.

Accounting Standard (AS) 28, 'Impairment of Assets', is applicable to E&P enterprises irrespective of the method of accounting used. For the purpose of AS 28, each cost centre used for depreciation (depletion) purposes should be treated as a Cash Generating Unit.

Many E&P enterprises enter into joint venture agreements for oil and gas exploration, development and production. In case of such arrangements, the accounting principles prescribed in Accounting Standard (AS) 27, 'Financial Reporting of Interests in Joint Ventures', should be applied.

An enterprise may change the method of accounting from full cost method to successful efforts method. The change in the method of accounting should be carried out with retrospective effect. Such a change is treated as a change in accounting policy and should be accounted for in accordance with Accounting Standard (AS) 5, 'Net Profit or Loss for the Period, Prior Period Items and Changes in Accounting Policies'.

When a change in the method of accounting is made, the effect thereof is calculated in accordance with the new method as if the enterprise was always following the new method. The resulting deficiency/surplus should be charged/credited to the statement of profit and loss in the year in which the method of accounting is changed.

An E&P enterprise should disclose the following in its financial statements:

1. The method of accounting followed.
   
    

2. Net quantities of an enterprise's interests in proved reserves and proved developed reserves of (a) oil (including condensate and natural gas liquids) and (b) gas as at the beginning and additions, deductions, production and closing balance for the year.
   
    

3. Net quantities of an enterprise's interest in proved reserves and proved developed reserves of (a) oil and (b) gas should also be disclosed on the geographical basis.
   
    

4. The reporting of reserve quantities should be stated in metric tonnes for oil reserves and cubic meters for gas reserves.

Abandon

To discontinue attempts to produce oil and gas from a mining lease area or a well and to plug the reservoir in accordance with regulatory requirements and salvage all recoverable equipments.

Appraisal Well

A well drilled as part of an appraisal drilling programme, which is carried out to determine the physical extent of oil and gas reserves and likely production rate of a field.

Block

A defined area for purposes of licensing or leasing to an enterprise or enterprises for exploration, development and production rights.

Bottom-Hole Contributions

Money or property paid to an operator for use in drilling a well on property in which the payer has no property interest. The contributions are payable when the well reaches a pre-determined depth, regardless of whether the well is productive or non-productive. The payer may receive proprietary information on the well's potential productivity.

Condensate

Low vapour pressure hydrocarbons obtained from Natural Gas through condensation or extraction and refer solely to those hydrocarbons that are liquid at normal surface temperature and pressure conditions.

Dry Hole

A well, which has proved to be non-productive.

Dry Hole Contribution

A contribution made by one enterprise to costs incurred by another enterprise that is drilling a nearby well to obtain information from the enterprise drilling the well; the contribution is made when the well is complete and is found to be unsuccessful.

Geological and Geophysical Studies

Processes which seek surface or subterranean indications of earth structure or formation where experience has shown the possibility of existence of mineral deposits.

Geological Survey

An exploratory programme directed to examination of rock and sediments obtained by boring or drilling, or by inspection of surface outcroppings.

Geophysical Survey

A study of the configuration of the earth's crust in a given area, as determined by the use of seismic, gravity, magnetic and geo-chemical procedures.

Mining Lease

The license issued for offshore and onshore properties for conducting development and production activity.

Natural Gas Liquids (NGL)

Hydrocarbons (primarily ethane, propane, butane and natural gasoline) which can be extracted from wet natural gas and become liquid under various combinations of increasing pressure and lower temperature.

Petroleum Exploration License

The license issued for offshore and onshore properties for conducting exploration activity.

Support Equipment and Facilities

Equipment and facilities of the nature of service units, camp facilities, godowns (for stores and spares), workshops (for equipment repairs), transport services (trucks and helicopters), catering facilities and drilling and seismic equipment.

Work-Over

Remedial work to the equipment within a well, the well pipework or relating to attempts to increase the rate of flow.