An Analysis of Regional Evaluation Characteristics for U.S. Oil & Gas Producing Assets

(1)

Vol. 49, No. 3G O2012PG pp. 309-318

ࢠ֝ଭ஺લ࣢঍ॺକԧਆୢԧ౿ඌԧଭ൉ন૬ীंজ

਑਎ෝ

Â ࢮ็଀

Â ହஂপ

An Analysis of Regional Evaluation Characteristics for U.S. Oil & Gas Producing Assets

Seung Hun Shin, Hee Won Park and Jong-Se Lim

Abstract : The value of oil and gas producing asset can be calculated by a discounted cash flow analysis and transaction metric analysis from historical transaction data. This paper presents an analysis on U.S. producing assets to characterize various factors affecting the value of oil and gas assets through the analysis of ten transaction data in Permian basin, Gulf of Mexico, and Texas & Oklahoma, U.S. The results of cash flow analysis on target projects show that transaction metrics can be affected by oil/gas ratio in reserves, well life related to well decline characteristics and PDP portion in proved reserves. The value of oil and gas asset increases with higher oil portion in reserves, higher initial production characteristics in case of equivalent reserves, longer life characteristics in case of equivalent current production rate. Also, offshore assets have higher portion of fixed operating cost and plug and abandon cost in total cash flow than onshore assets.

Key words : Producing asset, Valuation, Transaction metrics, Proved reserves

څ أ ԦԓڮÀ֟ۻۆÀ࠘əॣۍইŚ৔ζқԵѪęęäڮÀ֟ۻä͒ԐͻقԴصرݕϔۤ͟, ێԦԓ

͟, قۋ࠶ˣۆä͒ɳÀˣںҼİॠيĀ܁ʽɰ. ۋٍĵقԴəйĶۆʂशۺۍڮۻä͒ݓًۍऎй؋

қݓ, Ϯ֨ࡑχ३Ԝ, ࢭԐ֟-١ࢁ͆঒υگԜ3Ėۆ10ÒڮÀ֟ۻۙΒεۋڌॠيԦԓڮÀ֟ۻä͒ɳÀ قٖॳںй࠘ə࣢Ձڅՙ˞ںқԵॠٕɰ. ÁڮÀ֟ۻۆۙΒٮইŚ৔ζқԵĀęݓًۺڮÀ֟ۻۆ

࣢Ձۍڙڮ/À֟ϔۤ͟Ҽڱ, ԦԓÇթڱęěʹʽԦԓÀ޽țս, ঝۍϔܼۤ͟ঝۍÒьԦԓϔۤ͟ۆҼڱ

ˣق˰͆ä͒ɳÀÀٖॳںыڼں؎սەؽɰ. ڮÀÀÌՃۍইۦϔܼۤ͟ڙڮҼڱۋȭںս΀, ʴێॢ

ϔۤ͟ۆڮÀ֟ۻۆąڍϮ֨ࡑχęÏۋধսÀӇδڮÀ֟ۻۋ, ʴێॢتڷͿԦԓܼۍڮÀ֟ۻۆ

ąڍऎй؋ęÏۋÀ޽țսÀšڮÀ֟ۻۋȭڹÀ࠘εݓɨɰ. ̚ॢ, ইŚ৔ζںࣀॢڏٖɳÀқԵ

Āę३ԜۆąڍگԜقҼ३Č܁ڏٖҼфदėҼڌۋۻߕইŚ৔ζقԴ޲ݓॠəҼܼۋȭڼں؎

սەؽɰ.

ܳڅر Ԧԓۙԓ, À࠘थÀ, ä͒ɳÀ, ঝۍϔۤ͟

2012ț3ښ22ێۿս, 2012ț5ښ31ێ֮ԐٰΒ 2012ț6ښ21ێóۦঝ܁

1) قȃݓকˮ֟ŔΝ(ܳ)

2) ॢĶ३تʂॡİقȃݓۙڙėॡę

*Corresponding Author(ےܛՃ) E-mail; jslim@hhu.ac.kr

Address; Department of Energy and Resources Engineering, Korea Maritime University, Busan, 606-791, Korea

Դ΁

2010țşܵڷͿҚйۆڮÀ֟ۻä͒֨ۤڹۻՃ ćڮۻÒьä͒ۆ57%ε޲ݓॠ϶, Fig. 1ęÏۋٍ

Âä͒æڹأ210æ, ŔőϿəأ1ߎزҝقɵॢɰ.

࣢০, йĶڹ܁࠘ą܃ۺڦॹڅՙ(Risk)ÀäۆػČ,

100يțۆًԐٮ࣊ϼՁ, ėÒ֨ۤ(Open Market)ę

ä͒ՙ֨ۤˣۆьɵͿۍॠيՃćڮۻä͒ۆܼ֮

ݓͿۙνۡČەɰ. ࣢০ԦԓܼۍԦԓ܁ںप॥ॠČ

ەəԦԓڮÀ֟ۻۙԓڹ࣊ۙڦॹڅՙÀۚČÒь قʂॢÀɠՁںप॥ॠČەرڮÀÀÌՃۍইۦҚ йڮÀ֟ۻä͒ۆܳܛں޲ݓॠČەɰ. ԦԓڮÀ

֟ۻԐغڹşԦԓܼۍڮ܁ںࣀॢইŚ৔ζęҙܕ ۋঝۍʼؽڷǣ߸À֨߸εڅॠəঝۍйÒь(Proved Undeveloped; PUD)ϔۤ͟ݓًۆ߸ÀÒьںࣀ३Ԝ֧

ʽۙԓۆÀ࠘ق˰͆࣊ۙսیںşʂॣսەɰ(Ձڙ Ͽˣ, 2009). ԦԓۙԓڹFig. 2ٮÏۋگ३Ԝ̚əÒ ьѓ֩ق˰͆‘ێъÒьşѪۙԓ’(Conventional Play) ę‘֪ÒьşѪۙԓ’(Unconventional Play ̚əResources

ٍĵȦЛ

(2)

Fig. 1. Global oil & gas transaction trend (source : Goodisman, 2011, p.5).

Fig. 2. Classification of oil & gas assets.

Fig. 3. U.S. transaction metrics by regions (source : Scotia Waterous, 2011, p.1).

(3)

Fig. 4. Cash flow models of each oil & gas assets using AssetCF_Pack_Ver_1.0.

Play)ڷͿʂѻʼ϶঳ۙə߯ŖÁġںыČەəՕێÀ֟

(Shale Gas) ˣۋप॥ʽɰ(Čۦচ, 2007; іЛԵ, 2011).

Ԧԓۙԓä͒֨قəɰتॢۙԓÀ࠘थÀ(Valuation) ѓѪںࣀ३֨ۤÀ(Fair Market Value)εćԓॢɰ(Haag, 2005). ֨ۤÀۆćԓę࣊ۙۆԐĀ܁֨ÀۤȇνԐ ڌʼəѓѪڹॣۍইŚ৔ζқԵѪ(Discounted Cash Flow Analysis)ۋ϶(Mian, 2002; Suslick and Schiozer, 2004), ęäڮÀ֟ۻä͒ԐͻͿҙࢢࣀćۺڷͿصرݕɳ ڦϔۤ͟, ێԦԓ͟, قۋ࠶ˣۆä͒ɳÀˣںҼİ

қԵॠəѓѪۋ ѿॱʽɰ(Knull et al., 2007). йĶۆ

ąڍۋ͠ॢä͒ɳÀəυ࠘ҙʴԓ֨Ճߌͤي͠ş ěقۆ३սݚʼرьशʼəʚ, Fig. 3ęÏۋگ३Ԝ

фŔݓًق˰͆Ŕ֨ՃÀϿ˃ɰβɰ. ݓًق˰δ

ä͒ɳÀ֨Ճ޲ۋəݓًѻͿԦԓۙԓۆ࣢Ձۋܕۦ ॠş˺Лۍʚ, ۋ͠ॢۋڮͿҚйԦԓۙԓϔۓ֨ݓ

ًѻԦԓۙԓۆ࣢Ձজəज़սۺۋ϶, ۋĀęəԦԓ

ۙԓϔۓ֨߯ۺÀüʪ߻ęঊԜͳ܃Čقࢀًॣ

ںսॱॣìڷͿࣺɳʽɰ. ۋٍĵقԴəԦԓۙԓۆ

ܛΪ, ݓًф࣢Ձق˰͆À࠘थÀقٖॳںܳəʂश

څՙ˞ں࣢ՁজॠČÁ࣢Ձڅՙ˞ۋԦԓۙԓۆÀ࠘

ق ر̃ॢ ٖॳں ܳəݓ ԕट҃Čۙ ॢɰ.

҆΁

Ԧԓۙԓä͒֨ŔۙԓÀ࠘قٖॳںܳəڅՙͿ əԦԓНۆڙڮ/À֟Ҽڱ, Ԧԓݓ՚şÂ(Reserve/

Production(R/P) Ratio), ইۦێԦԓ͟, ԦԓɳÀ(Lifting Cost), ঝۍϔۤ͟(Proved Reserves) ܼÒьԦԓ(Proved Developed Producing; PDP)ϔۤ͟ʂҼঝۍйÒь(PUD) ϔۤ͟ۆҼڱ, ३ԜġĵۆąڍۆИदėߌν(Plug &

Abandonment; P&A) Ҽڌˣۋɰ. ۋٍĵəйĶۆʂ शۺۍڮۻä͒ݓًۋϸԴ࣢ՁԜʂѻʼəϮ֨ࡑ χ(Gulf of Mexico; GOM), ڐ॒Ѯν(Wolfberry) Òь ÒȝęÏۋ֪ÒьÒȝşѪۙԓۋܳܛںۋΘəݓً, ێъÒьÒȝę Ïۋ֪ÒьÒȝşѪۙԓۋܳܛںۋΘ əऎй؋(Permian) қݓфێъşѪۙԓۍࢭԐ֟-١ࢁ

͆঒υ(TX-OK)ܳ ݓًں ʂԜݓًڷͿԸ܁ॠي 2009 țҙࢢ2011țūݓ֬܃ä͒ʽԦԓۙԓ10ÒԐͻε

ʂԜڷͿսॱʼؽɰ. ڮÀ֟ۻÀ࠘εथÀॠşڦ३, 10æۆԦԓۙԓقʂ३ä͒֨ۚՁʽ܃3ۙϔۤ͟

थÀ҃ČԴۆԦԓٚ͟ࠑںۓͳۙΒͿॢইŚ৔ζқ Եۋսॱʼؽɰ. ইŚ৔ζқԵںڦ३ϔۤࠢ͟ࢬČν ѻٚԜԦԓ͟, ä͒ܓæ, ڮÀ֟Àüˣںۓͳॠي

ইŚ৔ζۆĀęεʪ߻ॠəكՆ॒ͿŔ͖ۍAssetCF_

(4)

Table 1. Reserves and current productions of target projects

# Asset

Name On/Off Loc.

Heat Equivalent (6:1 - mcf:bbl) Price Equivalent (21:1 - mcf:bbl) Reserve

(MBOE) PDP

Reserve (MBOE) PDNP

Reserve (MBOE) PUD

Reserve (MBOE) Proved

Daily Prod.

(BOED) Reserve (MBOE)

PDP

Reserve (MBOE) PDNP

Reserve (MBOE) PUD

Reserve (MBOE) Proved

Daily Prod.

(BOED) 1 ER offshore GOM 4,835 8,186 6,405 19,427 10,200 3,443 4,152 4,264 11,858 6,226 2 HE offshore GOM 11,696 12,761 38,288 62,745 26,667 8,023 7,369 20,156 35,547 15,108 3 ME offshore GOM 9,229 8,931 5,192 23,352 10,000 4,296 3,947 2,390 10,633 4,553 4 DU onshore TX-OK 6,999 5,361 5,609 17,969 4,500 4,033 3,103 3,205 10,342 2,590 5 ST onshore TX-OK 5,364 1,435 2,778 9,578 3,333 2,722 691 1,185 4,598 1,600 6 CO onshore TX-OK 1,990 3,066 6,151 11,207 1,000 1,723 2,513 5,026 9,261 826

7 LE onshore TX-OK 1,022 343 357 1,721 890 1,006 321 297 1,624 840

8 SA onshore Permian 26,442 2,169 28,902 57,512 5,750 16,254 1,672 21,692 39,618 3,961 9 WE onshore Permian 1,377 405 3,452 5,234 552 1,266 377 3,184 4,827 509 10 SW onshore Permian 2,263 71 1,656 3,990 673 1,906 52 911 2,869 484

Table 2. PV10s and acquisition prices of target projects

# Asset Name PV10 - PDP (M$)

PV10 - PDNP (M$)

PV10 - PUD (M$)

PV10 - Proved (M$)

Acquisition Price (M$)

1 ER 171,589 179,182 179,008 529,779 220,000

2 HE 292,615 415,337 925,528 1,633,480 600,000

3 ME 185,862 208,663 93,380 487,905 160,000

4 DU 158,341 88,355 117,741 364,437 200,000

5 ST 73,245 21,447 11,402 106,094 70,000

6 CO 78,558 98,177 177,761 354,496 150,000

7 LE 38,155 12,016 13,305 63,476 37,000

8 SA 384,173 38,785 258,052 681,010 450,000

9 WE 41,290 13,840 77,078 132,208 70,000

10 SW 44,492 1,590 21,778 67,861 45,500

Pack_Ver_1.0(॒ͿŔ͖ˣ΀ѥ঒: 2011-01-199-002307) ںÒьॠيԐڌॠٕɰ(Fig. 4). ۋ॒ͿŔ͖ڹϔۤ͟

थÀşěۋۚՁॢй͒Ԧԓٚ͟ࠑĀęεۓͳॠي

ԐڌۙÀڮÀ֟Àü, ä͒ܓæ, ڦॹڅՙق˰δϔ

ۤ͟ॣۍˣںъٖॠيսیՁфտইۦÀ࠘қԵں

սॱॣ ս ەʪ΀ ॢɰ.

ۋٍĵۆЀۺڹÁڮÀ֟ۙԓۆۼʂÀ࠘थÀÀ

؉ɨʴێॢܓæقԴۆݓًѻ/ڮ঍ѻڮÀ֟ۙԓÀ

࠘ۆҼİۋдͿ, ÁڮÀ֟ۙԓۆইŚ৔ζқԵ֨ۙ

ԓۍսÀقٖॳںÀۤࡾóй࠘əڅՙۍঝۍϔۤ͟

χںÀ࠘थÀقъٖॠٕɰ. қԵʂԜۍ10æۆԦԓۙ

ԓڹ2009țҙࢢ2011țԐۋقä͒ʽìڷͿ֬܃ä

͒ɾ֨قəڮÀ֟Àüۋɵνۺڌʼؽş˺Лق, Ҽ

İεڦ३2009țҙࢢ2011țۆWTI ڮÀٮHenryHub À֟ÀüۆथŒսܵۍ$85/bbl, $4/mmBtuεԦԓşÂ

ۻߕقʂ३Č܁ۺڌॠٕɰ. ̚ॢ, ÁġĵۆտইÀ (Net Present Value)əঝۍϔۤ͟ä͒֨ࣀԜۺڷͿۺ ڌʼə 10% ॣۍڱں ۺڌॠي ćԓॠٕɰ. Table 1ڹ

ʂԜڮÀ֟ۻ˞ۆϔۤࠢ͟ࢬČνѻϔۤ͟ęϔۓ֨

۾şܵێԦԓ͟ں, Table 2əAssetCF_Pack_Ver_1.0ڷ ͿćԓʽտইÀٮ֬܃ϔϔÀε, Table 3قəঝۍÒ ьԦԓ(PDP)ϔۤ͟ںইۦێԦԓ͟ڷͿǣɂÉۍR/P Ratioٮϔۤ͟фێԦԓ͟ä͒ɳÀεʪ֨ॠٕɰ. ϔ

ۤ͟фێԦԓ͟ä͒ɳÀқԵ֨ڙڮঞԓѕͣ(Oil Equivalent Barrel)ۆćԓڹَ͟şܵ(ڙڮ1 bbl = À

֟6 Mcf)ęÀüşܵ(ڙڮ1 bbl = À֟21.25 Mcf)ۆ

(5)

Table 3. RP Ratio and transaction metrics of target projects

# Asset Name RP Ratio Acquisition/1P (Price), $/BOE

Acquisition/1P (Heat), $/BOE

Acquisition/Prod (Price), $/BOED

Acquisition/Prod (Heat), $/BOED

1 ER 5.2 18.6 11.3 35,335 21,569

2 HE 6.4 16.9 9.6 39,715 22,500

3 ME 6.4 15.0 6.9 35,140 16,000

4 DU 10.9 19.3 11.1 77,219 44,444

5 ST 7.9 15.2 7.3 43,744 21,000

6 CO 30.7 16.2 13.4 181,518 150,000

7 LE 5.3 22.8 21.5 44,057 41,573

8 SA 27.4 11.4 7.8 113,610 78,261

9 WE 26.0 14.5 13.4 137,488 126,812

10 SW 16.2 15.9 11.4 94,044 67,641

Fig. 5. Transaction metrics by oil-gas reserves ratio.

˃ÀݓͿ սॱॠٕɰ.

ڙڮҼܼق˰δԦԓ͟/ϔۤ͟ϔۓɳÀқԵ

߯Ŗ˞رйĶۆąڍڙڮÀüۋ À֟Àüق Ҽ३

ԜɾॢÌՃε҃ۋČەş˺Лق, َ͟şܵڙڮঞԓ ѕͣͿঞԓॣąڍϔۤ͟ä͒ɳÀǣێԦԓ͟ä͒ɳ Àəϔܼۤ͟ڙڮ/À֟ҼڱقÀۤࢀٖॳںыə ɰ. Fig. 5əঝۍϔܼۤ͟ڙڮۆҼڱق˰δۙԓϔ ۓɳÀ˞ۆ࣢Ձۍʚ, ইۦڮÀʂҼÀ֟ÀÀϔڍǰ ş˺ЛقڙڮҼܼۋۙԓϔۓɳÀقй࠘əٖॳۋ

ϔڍȭڼں؎սەɰ. ˰͆Դۋ঳ۆқԵقԴəϔ

ܼۤ͟ڙڮ/À֟Ҽڱق˰δٖॳں܃äॠČÁڅ ՙ˞ۆ܁ঝॢ࣢Ձںࣷ؊ॠşڦ३ڙڮঞԓѕͣćԓ

֨ َ͟şܵ(6:1)ۋ ؉ɨ ڮÀ֟ Àüşܵ(21.25:1)ں

ۺڌॠٕɰ.

ݓًѻR/P Ratio, Ԧԓ͟/ϔۤ͟ϔۓɳÀқԵ ۋٍĵقԐڌʽ10ÒڮÀ֟ۻۆş҆ۙΒ˞ęێ ъۺڷͿ؎Ͳݕ܁҃˞ںܛ०ॠٕں˺, Ϯ֨ࡑχ, ऎ й؋ қݓ, ࢭԐ֟-١ࢁ͆঒υܳ Ճ ݓً ڮÀ֟ۻۆ

ێъۺۍ࣢ՁڹTable 4ٮÏɰ. Ϯ֨ࡑχۆąڍێъ ۺڷͿ۹Ϊࠗۆėŕέ, ڮߕ࣊ęʪˣڮߕڮʴęě ʹʽНՁۋϔڍܞ؉ߣşԦԓۋψڹъϸ, ߣşۆ

ęʪॢԦԓڷͿۍॢ۹ΪࠗۆӇδؓͳÇՙͿۍ३

ԦԓÇթڱۋࡾɰ. ऎй؋қݓۆąڍʂߕۺڷͿÀ

޽țսÀš(Long Life) ڮÀ֟ۻۋψ؉, ߣşԦԓ͟

ۋࡾݓə؍ݓχ30țۋԜԦԓۋݓ՚ʼəąڍÀψ ɰ. ࢭԐ֟-١ࢁ͆঒υۆąڍ۹Ϊ֮ࠗʪق˰͆ϔڍ

ɰتॢÒьćন(Plan of Developemt; POD)ۋܕۦॠ ي̤͸ॢ࣢Ձػۋɰتॢ঍ࢗۆڮÀ֟ۻۋܕۦॢ

ɰ. Fig. 6قқԵʂԜڮÀ֟ۻ10ĖۙΒεࣀ३ć

(6)

Table 4. Regional characteristics of oil & gas assets

GOM Permian TX-OK

RP Ratio Short Long Medium

Oil portion 20~50% 70~80% 0~100%

Decline Rate Very Fast Slow Variable

Lifting Cost High Low Low

Geological Risk High Low Medium

Fig. 6. Comparison of regional R/P Ratio and transaction metrics.

ԓʽݓًѻथŒ(êڹφʂŔ॒͒) R/P Ratioٮä͒ɳ ÀεǣࢍǴؽɰ. ؘقԴسśॢÁݓًۆێъۺۆ࣢

ՁęÏۋߣşԦԓՁۋܞڹъϸ, ԦԓÇթڱۋÀۤ

Ӈδ GOMݓًۆ R/P RatioÀ Àۤ ǰČ, ԦԓşÂۋ

šऎй؋ݓًڹR/P RatioÀÀۤȭóǣࢍǮɰ. ϔ

ۤ͟ϔۓɳÀۆąڍGOM ݓًۆϔۤ͟ä͒ɳÀÀ

ऎй؋قҼ३ȭóǣࢍǮəʚ, ۋ͠ॢۋڮəʴێॢ

ϔۤ͟ۆۙԓۆąڍGOM ݓًۋߣşইŚধսÀܞ ş˺Лۋɰ. ъϸ, ʴێॢێԦԓ͟ںԦԓܼۍڮÀ

֟ۙԓێąڍÀ޽țսÀšऎй؋ݓًۆԦԓۋ١

͘ʴ؋ݓ՚ʾսەş˺ЛقÀۤȭڹێԦԓ͟ɾä

͒ɳÀεǣࢍǶɰ. TX-OK ێъۺۍڮۻڹɰتॢ࣢

ՁںÍəЀशԦԓࠗۋܕۦॠيێěՁەə࣢Ձں

҃يܳݓə ؍əɰ.

R/P Ratioق˰δԦԓ͟/ϔۤ͟ϔۓɳÀқԵ R/P RatioəইۦԦԓ͟ڷͿć՚ԦԓÀ܁֨Àɠ

ॢ Ԧԓțսε ǣࢍǴə ݓशͿ ۹Ϊࠗۆ ڮߕ࣊ęʪ, ۹ΪࠗؓͳˣęěćÀەɰ(Feygin and Satkin, 2004).

ʂߕۺڷͿȭڹڮߕ࣊ęʪں҃ۋəGOM ݓًęێ ҙ ࢭԐ֟-١ࢁ͆঒υܳۆ ێъÒьşѪ ڮÀ֟ۻق

Ҽ३ǰڹڮߕ࣊ęʪεÍəऎй؋қݓۆ۹Ϊࠗۋ

(7)

Fig. 7. Transaction metrics by R/P Ratios.

Fig. 8. Transaction metrics by PDP portion of 1P reserves.

ԜʂۺڷͿšڮۻԦϼݓ՚ͳں҃يܵɰ. Fig. 7ڹ

R/P Ratioق˰δϔۤ͟ä͒ɳÀٮێԦԓ͟ä͒ɳ ÀεǣࢍǶŔρۋɰ. ݓًقԜěػۋʴێॢϔۤ͟

ں҃ڮॢԦԓۙԓۆҼİ֨قəR/P RatioÀȭڷϸ

ধսşÂۋɡş˺ЛقԜʂۺڷͿÀ࠘ÀǰóथÀ ʼ϶, ʴێॢ ێԦԓ͟ڷͿ Ԧԓܼۍ Ԧԓۙԓۆ Ҽİ

֨قəR/P RatioÀࢁս΀À޽țսÀţş˺ЛقČ Àق ä͒ʿں ؎ ս ەɰ.

PDP/PUD Ҽܼق˰δϔۓɳÀқԵ

ۋٍĵəঝۍϔۤ͟χںşܵڷͿқԵʼؽڷдͿ, ঝۍÒьԦԓ(PDP)ϔۤ͟ Ҽܼۋ ࢀ ìڹ ঝۍÒьй Ԧԓ(Proved Developed Non-Producing; PDNP)ϔۤ͟

ۋǣ ঝۍйÒь(PUD)ϔۤ͟ۋ ԜʂۺڷͿ ۺڼں ۆ йॢɰ. Fig. 8ڹঝۍϔܼۤ͟PDP Ҽڱق˰δϔۤ

͟ä͒ɳÀٮێԦԓ͟ä͒ɳÀεǣࢍǶìۋɰ. ϔ

ۤ͟ä͒ɳÀəPDPۆҼڱę࣢ѻॢԜěěćÀػ

əʚ, ۋəڮÀ֟ۻۆä͒֨PUDϔۤ̚͟ॢঝۍ ϔۤ͟ۆێҙۋдͿPDPϔۤ͟χࢂۆÀ࠘εۍ܁ы ş˺Лۋɰ. ॢठ, ێԦԓ͟ä͒ɳÀəঝۍϔܼۤ͟

PDPϔۤ͟ۆҼڱۋۚ؉ݗս΀, ݌, PUDϔۤ͟ۋࢁս

΀ݒÀ॥ں؎սەəʚ, ۋəʴێॢԦԓ͟ںԦԓܼ

ۍۙԓێąڍPUD ϔۤ͟ęÏڹԜ֧۠ۦͳ(Upside Potential)ۋψںս΀ۙԓÀ࠘əȭóथÀʿںۆйॢ

ɰ. ॢठ, Ϯ֨ࡑχۆąڍقəێԦԓ͟ä͒ɳÀٮPDP ϔۤ͟Ҽڱۋ̤͸ॢԜěěćÀػəʚ, ۋə३Ԝڮ ۻۆPUDϔۤ͟ۆąڍ֨߸قʂॢڦॹڅՙÀܕۦ ॠيۙԓϔۓ֨PUDϔۤ͟ڹPDPϔۤ͟χࢂۆÀ

࠘ε ۍ܁ыݓЇॢɰə ۆйͿ३Եʽɰ.

ڮÀ֟ÀüԜ֧фॠ͇ق˰δݓًѻۙԓÀ࠘ۆ

Ѻজ

Fig. 9əڮÀٮÀ֟Àεٍ-3%قԴٍ3%ūݓݒ Ç֨ࡎں˺, ÁݓًѻڮÀ֟ۙԓۆNPV@10%ۆ

(8)

Fig. 9. Sensitivity analysis of NPV%10 with oil/gas price escalation by regions.

Table 5. Cash flow analysis and lifting cost by target projects

# Asset Name

Revenue (M$)

Tax (M$)

OPEX (M$)

P&A (M$)

Oil Portion

Lifting Cost ($/BOE)

PDP Portion

1 ER 302,144 - 109,553 114,628 45.7% 31.8 24.9%

2 HE 678,432 - 370,089 254,427 39.6% 46.1 18.6%

3 ME 362,585 - 121,450 143,458 24.1% 28.3 39.5%

4 DU 340,432 28,587 91,105 36,133 40.9% 29.7 39.0%

5 ST 224,480 15,714 92,290 19,734 27.5% 39.7 56.0%

6 CO 130,507 9,525 20,482 - 75.8% 17.4 17.8%

7 LE 81,666 5,798 16,575 - 92.1% 22.2 59.4%

8 SA 1,400,825 103,425 417,974 2,870 56.6% 32.1 46.0%

9 WE 97,043 7,068 14,757 - 89.2% 17.2 26.3%

10 SW 158,336 10,963 72,958 - 60.9% 44.0 56.7%

Fig. 10. Comparison of lifting cost by regions.

ѺজεǣࢍǶìۋɰ. ԦԓşÂۋšऎй؋ݓًۙԓ ۆąڍॳ঳ڮÀۆԜ֧ęॠ͇ق˰δۙԓÀ࠘ۆѺ জÀ֮ॠ϶, ԦԓşÂۋݥڹϮ֨ࡑχۆąڍۙԓÀ

࠘ۆѺজÀۚڼں؎սەɰ. ۋ͠ॢĀęεࣀ३ڮ

À֟Àۆ Ԝ֧ۋ ٚԜʼə ąڍ ԦԓÀɠٍսÀ ţČ, ԦԓÇթڱۋۚڹऎй؋ݓًۆۙԓÀ࠘Ԝ֧يͳۋ

ȭڷ϶, ڮÀ֟Àۆॠ͇ۋٚԜʼəąڍϔۤ͟ۆӇ δԦԓধսÀÀɠॢϮ֨ࡑχݓًۆۙԓق࣊ۙ॥ۋ

ц͊ݔ॥ں ؎ս ەɰ.

ݓًѻইŚ৔ζқԵ

Table 5əқԵʂԜ॒Ϳ܄࣡ۆইŚ৔ζқԵںࣀ

(9)

Fig. 11. Revenue & Cost Analysis by Regions.

Fig. 12. Example of Offshore CF model (“HE” Asset).

३ćԓʽϔ߻ؚ, ԦԓՃ(Severance Tax), ڏٖҼ, दė ҼˣęԦԓɳÀεǣࢍǶìۋɰ. Fig. 10قԴݓًѻ

थŒԦԓɳÀəϮ֨ࡑχ३ԜۆąڍदėҼڌę͔॔

࣡ۆČ܁ڏٖҼˣڷͿۍ३ԦԓɳÀÀࢍݓًقҼ ३ȭڹठۋɰ. ॢठFig. 11ڹݓًѻPDPϔۤ͟Ԧԓ ںࣀॢϔ߻ؚܼڏٖҼ, ԦԓՃ, दėҼڌۋ޲ݓॠ əथŒҼڱںʪ֨ॢìۋɰ. Ϯ֨ࡑχ३Ԝۆąڍگ ԜقҼ३͔॔࣡Č܁ҼˣڏٖҼҼڱۋȭڹठۋ϶,

࣢০, P&A Ҽڌۋۻߕϔ߻ؚقԴȭڹҼܼں޲ݓ॥

ں؎սەɰ. Fig. 12ٮÏڹێъۺۍ३ԜġĵۆইŚ

৔ζϿʝقԴP&A ҼڌڹġĵܛΒ֨قψۋьԦॠ дͿۋεտইÀͿঞԓॣąڍॣۍʼرġĵÀ࠘ق

ۺڌʽɰ. Ŕ͠ǣ֬܃ͿəġĵܛΒ֨ڼ(-)ۆইŚ৔

ζںѓݓॠşڦ३ġĵܛΒ֨ьԦॣP&A Ҽڌں

ԦԓߣşҙࢢԦԓ͟ق˰͆ϔ߻ؚۆێҙε܃3ۙٚ

ࢎćܟ(Escrow Account) ˣقۺςॠəąڍ(Kaiser and

Snyder, 2009)ÀʂҙқۋдͿ, ३ԜġĵÀ࠘थÀ֨

P&A ҼڌݓśęěʹʽćأԐ२ˣںࣷ؊ॠيইŚ

৔ζق܁ঝॠóъٖॠيآॢɰ. ̚ॢ, ३Ԝġĵۆą ڍ Ԧԓ͟قěćػəČ܁ڏٖҼۆҼܼۋȭڷ϶, گ ԜۆąڍԦԓ͟ق˰͆ѺʴॠəѺʴڏٖҼۆҼܼ

ۋ ȭɰ.

Ā΁

ۋٍĵقԴəйĶۆʂशۺۍԦԓۙԓݓًۍϮ֨

ࡑχ, ࢭԐ֟ф١ࢁ͆঒υ, ऎй؋ݓًۆ10ÒڮÀ

֟ۻä͒ԐͻεқԵॠيR/P Ratio, ڙڮϔۤ͟Ҽܼ, PDP/PUD Ҽܼق ˰δ ϔۓ ɳÀ ࣢Ձں ࣷ؊ॠٕɰ.

ݓًѻͿқΪʽԦԓۙԓŔΝڹԦԓÀɠٍս, ԦԓÇ թڱ, ڏٖܓæ(گ३Ԝ) ˣࠑϸقԴʴݗՁں҃ۋд Ϳ, ۋ͠ॢݓًѻ࣢Ձۆ޲ۋəԦԓ۹Ϊࠗۆڮ঍ę

گ३Ԝق˰δڏٖܓæ࣢ՁقşۍॢɰČ҇սە ɰ. ۋٍĵۆĀęεࣀॠيڮÀ֟ۻۆϔۤ͟фԦ ԓ͟ɾ ɳÀə ڮÀ֟ۻۆ ԦԓÀɠٍս, ԦԓÇթڱ

фϔۤ͟қΪۆĵՁق˰͆޲ۋÀەڼں؎սە əʚ, ࣢০, ϔۤ͟фԦԓ͟ɾϔۓɳÀəġĵۆԦԓ À޽țսق ˰͆ ࢀ ठ޲ε ҃ۍɰ. گԜڮۻۆ ąڍ

PUDϔۤ͟ڹ PDPϔۤ͟χࢂۆ À࠘ε ݓɦ϶, ۋə

گԜۆঝۍϔۤۙ͟ԓقʂॢ֨ۤۆԸ঒ʪεÂۿۺ ڷͿǣࢍǶɰ. ̚ॢ, ڮÀ֟ÀۆԜ֧ۋٚԜʼəą ڍԦԓÀɠٍսÀţČ, ԦԓÇթڱۋۚڹऎй؋ݓ

ًۆڮÀ֟ۙԓۋ, ъʂۆąڍӇδԦԓধսÀÀ ɠॢϮ֨ࡑχݓًۆڮÀ֟ۙԓق࣊ۙ॥ۋڮν॥

ں؎սەɰ. ३ԜۆąڍگԜقҼ३Č܁ڏٖҼф

P&AҼڌۋۻߕইŚ৔ζقԴ޲ݓॠəҼܼۋȭڼ

(10)

਑਎ෝ

1997ț2ښԴڐʂॡİۙڙėॡęėॡԐ 1999ț2ښԴڐʂॡİۙڙėॡęėॡ

ԵԐ

2007ț8ښԴڐʂॡİݓĵঞą֨֟ࢰ ėॡҙ ėॡчԐ

ইۦ قȃݓকˮ֟ŔΝ(ܳ) ۋԐ (E-mail; andyshin007@gmail.com)

ହஂপ

ইۦ ॢĶ३تʂॡİ قȃݓۙڙėॡę İս (欧G 彳櫾躇G 缧49嘳G 缧2埲G 垾畢)

ࢮ็଀

1993ț2ښԴڐʂॡİۙڙėॡęėॡԐ 1995ț2ښԴڐʂॡİۙڙėॡęėॡ

ԵԐ

2000ț2ښԴڐʂॡİۙڙėॡęėॡ чԐ

ইۦ قȃݓকˮ֟ŔΝ(ܳ) ʂश (E-mail; phw007@gmail.com) ں؎սەڷ϶, ࣢০३ԜۙԓۆP&A Ҽڌڹϔۤ͟

थÀ҃ČԴقǣࢍǣəݓś֨۾ęɵνԸݓśʼəą ڍÀʂҙқۋдͿ, ŔP&A ҼڌݓśقʂॢćأԐ२ ں ইŚ৔ζԜق ܁ঝॠó ъٖॠيآ ॢɰ.

߯ŖĶǴşغ˞ۆԦԓۙԓϔۓটʴۋটь३ݙق

˰͆ۙԓथÀ֨ϔțьशʼəϔۓɳÀۆࣀćۙΒ ε޷ČॠəąڍÀψ؉ݓČەɰ. ۋٍĵεࣀ३ۋ͠

ॢࣀćۺϔۓɳÀۙΒəݓً̚əڮÀ֟ۻۆ࣢Ձ

˞ق˰͆ɰβóۺڌʼرآ॥ں؎սەؽڷ϶, ٍĵ ۆĀęəԦԓۙԓϔۓ֨ۙԓ࣢Ձق˰͆ČͲʼر آॣܼڅڅՙ˞قʂॢ܁҃ε܃ėॣսەںìڷ Ϳ ࣺɳॢɰ.

ԐԐ

ٍ҆ĵə2011țʪݓ֩ą܃ҙۆۦڙڷͿॢĶقȃ ݓşցथÀڙ(KETEP)ۆݓڙںы؉սॱॢٍĵę܃

ۓɦɰ(No. 2010201030001A).

޷ČЛॶ

ճ୍ก, 2007, “ࢠ֝ഔॷਆசඑൈ૾ਆं஺ଭࢭٽ়ଵ ԧਆਏਆഗ,”෉֝஺֜ਏਆഗվ෈ฎ஺,୪44֫5෹, pp.

455-473.

ࢽࢂজ, 2011, “णୢധԧਆୀ଀ࢫ෉֝ԧਆվॷଭॷડ෮ จ,” ෉֝஺֜ਏਆഗվ෈ฎ஺, ୪48֫4෹, pp. 524-538.

ন଀ࡦ, ׌পஜ, ଲֽঃ, ହஂপ, 2009, “֝ٛজକୀ଀߆

ंࠑ఼ծଭඝஜฃ,”෉֝஺֜ਏਆഗվ෈ฎ஺,୪46֫4

෹, pp. 498-508.

Feygin, M. and Satkin, R., 2004, “The Oil Reserves-to- Production Ratio and Its Proper Interpretation,” Natural Resources Research, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 57-60.

Goodisman, A., 2011, “Merger, Acquisition & Divestment Trends in the International & U.S. Arena,” Presentation Material, Proceedings of IPAA & TIPRO conference, Houston, U.S.A., January 12.

Haag, J., 2005, The Acquisition & Divestiture of Petroleum Property, PennWell Corporation, Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A., pp. 71-81.

Kaiser, M.J. and Snyder, B., 2009, “Supplemental Bonding in The Gulf of Mexico: The Potential Effects of Increasing Bond Requirements,” International Journal of Oil, Gas and Coal Technology, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 262-279.

Knull, W.H., Jones, S.T., Tyler, T.J. and Deutsch, R.D., 2007, “Accounting for Uncertainty in Discounted Cash Flow Valuation of Upstream Oil and Gas Investments,”

Journal of Energy and Natural Resources Law, Vol. 25, No 3, pp. 268-302.

Mian, M., 2002, Project Economics and Decision Analysis, Vol. I: Deterministic Models, PennWell Corporation, Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A., pp. 323-367.

Scotia Waterous, 2011, “U.S. Market Review, Fourth Quarter 2010,” Vol. 15, issue 3.

Suslick, S. and Schiozer, D., 2004, “Risk Analysis Applied to Petroleum Exploration and Production: An Overview,”

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, Vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 1-9.