Discussion Paper

(Extractive Activities)

1.	목적 및 주요내용

2.  현행 실무에의 주요 영향

3.	향후진행사항

4.	담당자

5.  Summary of questions for respondents

1.	목적 및 주요내용

■ 추출활동에 적용하는 재무보고 이슈를 분석하고 이를 규정하기 위한 회계모형의 근거를 마련하기 위함

IASB는 토론서에서 추출산업 관련한 모든 이해관계자들에게서 제안된 이슈와 접근법에 대한 의견을 구하고 있음. 접수된 외부 의견은 IASB가 이 프로젝트를 안건으로 채택하는 것을 비롯하여 프로젝트의 향후 방향을 결정하는 데 도움이 될 것임

■ 주요내용

(1) 광물, 석유 및 가스 매장량을 추정하고 분류하는 방법

(2) 광물, 석유 및 가스 권리에 대한 인식 방법

(3) 광물, 석유 및 가스 권리에 대한 측정 방법

(4) 추출활동에 대한 공시

2.	현행 실무에의 주요 영향

■ 현행 IFRS가 다루고 있지 않는 추출 활동에 관한 회계처리 방법을 제공하여 일관된 적용으로 비교가능성을 높일 수 있을 것임

3.	향후진행사항

■	IASB는 2010년 7월 30일까지 의견을 수렴하여, 이 프로젝트를 안건으로 채택할 것인지 여부를 결정할 예정임

4.	담당자

■	IASB:	Glenn Brady(gbrady@iasb.org)

■ KAI:	권성수 (조사연구실장, sskwon@kasb.or.kr)

김대현 (선임연구원, dhkim@kasb.or.kr)

5.	Summary of 벼estions for respondents

Question 1. Scope of extractive activities

In Chapter 1 the project team proposes that the scope of an extractive activities IFRS should include only upstream activities for minerals, oil and natural gas. Do you agree? Are there other similar activities that should also fall within the scope of an IFRS for extractive activities? If so, please explain what other activities should be included within its scope and why.

Question 2. Approach

Also in Chapter 1, the project team proposes that there should be a single accounting and disclosure model that applies to extractive activities in both the minerals industry and the oil and gas industry. Do you agree? If not, what requirements should be different for each industry and what is your justification for differentiating between the two industries?

Question 3. Definitions of minerals and oil and gas reserves and resources

In Chapter 2 the project team proposes that the mineral reserve and resource definitions established by the Committee for Mineral Reserves International Reporting Standards and the oil and gas reserve and resource definitions established by the Society of Petroleum Engineers (in conjunction with other industry bodies) should be used in an IFRS for extractive activities. Do you agree? If not, how should minerals or oil and gas reserves and resources be defined for an IFRS?

Question 4. Minerals or oil and gas asset recognition model— recognition

In Chapter 3 the project team proposes that legal rights, such as explorationrights or extraction rights, should form the basis of an asset referred to as a ‘minerals or oil and gas property’. The property is recognised when the legal rights are acquired. Information obtained from subsequent exploration and evaluation activities and development works undertaken to access the minerals or oil and gas deposit would each be treated as enhancements of the legal rights. Do you agree with this analysis for the recognition of a minerals or oil and gas property? If not, what assets should be recognised and when should they be recognised initially?

Question 5. Minerals or oil and gas asset recognition model—unit of account selection

Chapter 3 also explains that selecting the unit of account for a minerals or oil and gas property involves identifying the geographical boundaries of the unit of account and the items that should be combined with other items and recognised as a single asset.

The project team’s view is that the geographical boundary of the unit of account would be defined initially on the basis of the exploration rights held. As exploration, evaluation and development activities take place, the unit of account would contract progressively until it becomes no greater than a single area, or group of contiguous areas, for which the legal rights are held and which is managed separately and would be expected to generate largely independent cash flows.

The project team’s view is that the components approach in IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment would apply to determine the items that should be accounted for as a single asset.

Do you agree with this being the basis for selecting the unit of account of a minerals or oil and gas property? If not, what should be the unit of account and why?

Question 6. Minerals or oil and gas asset measurement model

Chapter 4 identifies current value (such as fair value) and historical cost as potential measurement bases for minerals and oil and gas properties. The research found that, in general, users think that measuring these assets at either historical cost or current value would provide only limited relevant information. The project team’s view is that these assets should be measured at historical cost but that detailed disclosure about the entity’s minerals or oil and gas properties should be provided to enhance the relevance of the financial statements (see Chapters 5 and 6).

In your view, what measurement basis should be used for minerals and oil and gas properties and why? This could include measurement bases that were not considered in the discussion paper. In your response, please explain how this measurement basis would satisfy the qualitative characteristics of useful financial information.

Question 7. Testing exploration properties for impairment

Chapter 4 also considers various alternatives for testing exploration properties for impairment. The project team’s view is that exploration properties should not be tested for impairment in accordance with IAS 36 Impairment of Assets. Instead, the project team recommends that an exploration property should be written down to its recoverable amount in those cases where management has enough information to make this determination. Because this information is not likely to be available for most exploration properties while exploration and evaluation activities are continuing, the project team recommends that, for those exploration properties, management should:

(a) write down an exploration property only when, in its judgement, there is a high likelihood that the carrying amount will not be recoverable in full; and

(b) apply a separate set of indicators to assess whether its exploration properties can continue to be recognised as assets.

Do you agree with the project team’s recommendations on impairment? If not, what type of impairment test do you think should apply to exploration properties?

Question 8. Disclosure objectives

In Chapter 5 the project team proposes that the disclosure objectives for extractive activities are to enable users of financial reports to evaluate:

(a) the value attributable to an entity’s minerals or oil and gas properties;

(b) the contribution of those assets to current period financial performance; and

(c) the nature and extent of risks and uncertainties associated with those assets.

Do you agree with those objectives for disclosure? If not, what should be the disclosure objectives for an IFRS for extractive activities and why?

Question 9. Types of disclosure that would meet the disclosure objectives

Also in Chapter 5, the project team proposes that the types of information that should be disclosed include:

(a) quantities of proved reserves and proved plus probable reserves, with the disclosure of reserve quantities presented separately by commodity and by material geographical areas;

(b) the main assumptions used in estimating reserves quantities, and a sensitivity analysis;

(c) a reconciliation of changes in the estimate of reserves quantities from year to year;

(d) a current value measurement that corresponds to reserves quantities disclosed with a reconciliation of changes in the current value measurement from year to year;

(e) separate identification of production revenues by commodity; and

(f) separate identification of the exploration, development and production cash flows for the current period and as a time series over a defined period (such as five years).

Would disclosure of this information be relevant and sufficient for users? Are there any other types of information that should be disclosed? Should this information be required to be disclosed as part of a complete set of financial statements?

Question 10. Publish What You Pay disclosure proposals

Chapter 6 discusses the disclosure proposals put forward by the Publish What You Pay coalition of non-governmental organisations. The project team’s research found that the disclosure of payments made to governments provides information that would be of use to capital providers in making their investment and lending decisions. It also found that providing information on some categories of payments to governments might be difficult (and costly) for some entities, depending on the type of payment and their internal information systems.

In your view, is a requirement to disclose, in the notes to the financial statements, the payments made by an entity to governments on a country-by-country basis justifiable on cost-benefit grounds? In your response, please identify the benefits and the costs associated with the disclosure of payments to governments on a country-by-country basis.