comisión nacional de hidrocarburos reserves approval ......the 1p reserves were also sanctioned at...
Post on 30-May-2020
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Mexico City, Mexico Sept 27-28, 2012
United Nations Framework Classification for Fossil and Mineral Reserves and Resources
UNFC‐Workshop
Edgar Rangel-GermánUlises Neri Flores
Comisión Nacional de Hidrocarburos
Reserves Approval Guidelines
2
Content
•Legal framework
•General process
•Reserves Approval Guidelines
•CNH’s Resolutions
•2012 Guidelines
•Conclusions
3
Content
•Legal framework
•General process
•Reserves Approval Guidelines
•CNH’s Resolutions
•2012 Guidelines
•Conclusions
4
Framework
Reserves
Regulatory Framework (Government, Regulatory Bodies)
Company Guidelines
Project‐Based
Resource Framework
PRMS ‐ SEC
EXPLORACION Y PRODUCCION
5
Framework
Reserves
Regulatory Framework (Government, Regulatory Bodies)
Company Guidelines
Project‐Based
Resource Framework
PRMS ‐ SEC
EXPLORACION Y PRODUCCION
6
Legal Framework
• The final reports by independent certifying parties must be OK’ed by CNH.
• Evaluation reports by PEMEX and quantification must be approved by CNH.
• Based on information from the CNH, SENER will register and publish the country's hydrocarbon reserves.
Reglamento de la Ley Reglamentaria del Artículo 27 Constitucional en el Ramo del Petróleo
(Article 10)
Some of CNH’s attributions:• To participate with SENER in
determining the policy for reserves replacement.
• To perform studies of evaluation, quantification and verification of reserves.
Ley de la CNH(Article 4, II y X)
Ley Orgánica de la Administración Pública Federal
(Article 33, XX)
• The energy ministry (SENER) will register and publish, based on the information of CNH, the reserves, according to the studies, assessment, quantification, and certifications.
7
Content
•Legal framework
•General process
•Reserves Approval Guidelines
•CNH’s Resolutions
•2012 Guidelines
•Conclusions
8
General process
• Estimates and hires certifications of Mexico’s reserves.
Pemex
• OK’s reports of certifying parties
• Approval of Pemex reports
CNH• Registers the reserves values
• Publishes the reserves
SENERSENERPemex
CNH
9
Content
•Legal framework
•General process
•Reserves Approval Guidelines
•CNH’s Resolutions
•2012 Guidelines
•Conclusions
10
Reserves Approval Guidelines
Reserves Guidelines
Resources Approval Guidelines
• Obtain Technical elements needed to perform studies of evaluation, quantification and verification.
• Establish Calendar of procedures, steps and requirementsthat Pemex and independent third parties must observe before submitting their reports.
• Assess Consistency between Pemex assessments and independent third parties (less than 10% at the regional level).
• Document Professional profile and independence of third parties.
Reserves Guidelines
12
Reserves Guidelines
13
Content
•Legal framework
•General process
•Reserves Approval Guidelines
•CNH’s Resolutions
•2012 Guidelines
•Conclusions
• Approved the reports of assessment and quantification of reserves ofPemex for the 1P, 2P and 3P categories of the Northeastern Marine Region,Southwestern Marine Region and Southern Region.
• Approved the 1P reserves of the Northern Region.
• The differences between Pemex’s figures and the certifying company’sfigures were greater than 10% for the 2P and 3P categories for the NorthernRegion.
• A specific review procedure was established.
14
Reserves Resolution 2010
15
Specific review procedure
Static Model
Technical
Dynamic Model
Prices
Opex
Capex
Production
Productivity Model Economic Analysis
Economic
$Development
Plan
%10Vol
VolVol
Reserves Pemex´s
Reserves sCertifier´Reserves Pemex´s
x
+
–
NPV
• Approved the reports of assessment and quantification of reserves ofPemex for the 1P, 2P and 3P categories of the Northeastern Marine Region,Southwestern Marine Region and Southern Region.
• Approved the 1P reserves of the Northern Region.
• The differences between Pemex’s figures and the certifying company’sfigures were greater than 10% for the 2P and 3P categories for the NorthernRegion.
• The Commission concluded that the differences were contingent resourcesin the Chicontepec Asset.
16
Reserves Resolution 2011
• Approved the reports of assessment and quantification of reserves ofPemex for the 1P, 2P and 3P categories of the Northeastern Marine Region,Southwestern Marine Region and Southern Region.
• Approved the 1P reserves of the Northern Region.
• The differences between Pemex’s figures and the certifying company’sfigures were greater than 10% for the 2P and 3P categories for the NorthernRegion.
• The Commission concluded that the differences were contingent resourcesin the Chicontepec Asset.
17
Reserves Resolution 2011
The 1P reserves were also sanctioned at Administrative Unit (Asset) level.
• Mexico´s oil reserves as of January 1st 2012, were sanctioned by the CNH.
• For the first time, the 1P reserves were sanctioned at the Administrative Unitlevel. The hydrocarbon volumes were approved for all the Administrative Units.
• Also, for the first time the CNH approved the 2P and 3P reserves of the fouradministrative Regions including Chicontepec (contain several recommendationsissued by CNH and SENER).
• The Administrative Unit Abkatun‐Pol‐Chuc required further analysis, but finallyapproved
Reserves Resolution 2012
19
CNH´s ResolutionsResolutions issued by the CNH
Reserves 1P Reserves2P and 3P
Comments
2010Resolution
Reserves for all Region were approved
The Northern Region was not approved
The 2P and 3P of theNorthern Region required further analysis; differences >10%
2011 Resolution
Reserves for all Regions were approved
The Northern Region was not approved
The 2P and 3P of theNorthern Regionrequired furtheranalysis; differences > 10%(contingent resources)
2012 Resolution
Reserves for all Administrative Units (assets) but Abkatun –Pol‐Chuc were approved
All the regions were approved
The Administrative Unit Abkatun‐Pol‐Chuc required further analysis, but finally approved
20
Content
•Legal framework
•General process
•Reserves Approval Guidelines
•CNH’s Resolutions
•2012 Guidelines
•Conclusions
Elements Reviewed
Analyisis
level
Criteria
of the review process
Timeline Reports Others
•Oil•Gas •BOE
• Differences (percentage)
• Region Level• Administrative Unit Level
• Meetings• Documents• Deliverables• Visits
• Formats• Pemex• Certifier
• Contracts• Simpler
processes
Elements Reviewed
Analyisis
level
Criteria
of the review process
Timeline Reports Others
•Oil•Gas •BOE
• Differences (percentage)
• Region Level• Administrative Unit Level
• Meetings• Documents• Deliverables• Visits
• Formats• Pemex• Certifier
• Contracts• Simpler
processes
Analysis level
23
The analysis will focus on the identification and assessment of the differences between the figures provided by the independent third parties and Pemex, for all categories, and these products: oil, gas and crude oil equivalent.
Derived from:• Resolution of the CNH Governing Body.
• Attention to the observations of external auditors for the public sector.
• Consultations with operating companies, certifiers, consultants and regulators.
Analysis
level
•Oil•Gas •BOE
24
• The analysis will focus on the identification andassessment of the differences between the figuresprovided by independent third parties and Pemex < 10%(first criterion).
• For 1P reserves, the anaylisis will be at the level ofAdministrative Unit. The analysis level for 2P and 3Preserves will be Region,
• For the following products: oil, gas, crude oil equivalent.
• CNH will consider the impact of the net value of thedifferences between Pemex and the certifier comparedwith regional and national total. (Second criterion).
Criteria of the review process
Criteria of the review process
• Differences (percentage)
• Region Level• Administrative Unit Level
25
First Criterion
Second Criterion
Third Criterion
• Analysis of CNH´s Board
10.0Vol
VolVol
Reserves Pemex´s
Reserves sCertifier´Reserves Pemex´s
05.0Vol
VolVol
1P Reserves National Pemex´s
Reserves 1P sCert1fier´Reserves 1P Pemex´s
05.0Vol
VolVol
Reserves 2P National Pemex´s
Reserves 2P sCert1fier´Reserves 2P Pemex´s
Criteria of the review process
A specific review procedure
26
Level of Analysis Product Percentage to define the criterion for the
differences
National absoluteshare of the valueof the volume of the differences
Oil ≤10% ≤5%
Administrative Unit 1P
Gas ≤10% ≤5%
BOE ≤10% ≤5%
Oil ≤10% ≤5%
Region 2P and 3P
Gas ≤10% ≤5%
BOE ≤10% ≤5%
Analysis Criteria
27
Guidelines comparison
Main characteristics 2010 2012Aggregation level BOE Oil
GasBOE
Level of the ruling Only one criterionAdministrative Unit
>10%Region>10%
Two criteriaFirst > 10%
Second, if the difference impacts > 5% of the national
reserve
Administrative process Complex Simple
Reports of information Pemex only Pemex and Certifier use the same
format
28
Guidelines comparison2010
2012
Applying the first criterion
29
DIFFERNCES OIL RESERVES GAS RESERVES RESERVES (BOE)
MMbls MMMcf MMbls
1P 2P 3P 1P 2P 3P 1P 2P 3P
Región Marina Noreste < 10 % < 10 % < 10 % < 10 % < 10 % > 10 % < 10 % < 10 % < 10 %
Cantarell Close to 10% < 10 % < 10 %
Ku‐Maloob‐Zaap < 10 % < 10 % < 10 %Región Marina Suroeste < 10 % < 10 % < 10 % < 10 % < 10 % < 10 % < 10 % < 10 % < 10 %
Abkatún‐Pol‐Chuc > 10 % > 10 % > 10 %Litoral de Tabasco < 10 % < 10 % < 10 %
Región Norte < 10 % < 10 % Close to 10% < 10 % < 10 % < 10 % < 10 % < 10 % < 10 %
Aceite Terciario del Golfo < 10 % > 10 % < 10 %
Burgos > 10 % < 10 % < 10 %Poza Rica Altamira < 10 % < 10 % < 10 %Veracruz > 10 % < 10 % < 10 %Región Sur < 10 % < 10 % < 10 % < 10 % < 10 % < 10 % < 10 % < 10 % < 10 %Bellota Jujo < 10 % < 10 % < 10 %Cinco Presidentes < 10 % < 10 % < 10 %Macuspana‐Muspac < 10 % < 10 % < 10 %Samaria Luna < 10 % < 10 % < 10 %
Applying the second criterion: 1P
30
National share of the differences Pemex vs Certifiers 1P
Administrative Unit
National share of the differences
OIL RESERVE
GAS RESERVE
RESERVE (BOE)
1P 1P 1PCantarellKu‐Maloob‐ZaapAbkatún‐Pol‐ChucLitoral de TabascoAceite Terciario del GolfoBurgosPoza Rica AltamiraVeracruzBellota JujoCinco PresidentesMacuspana‐MuspacSamaria Luna
All of the differences were less than 5%
Applying the second criterion: 2P and 3P
31
National share of the differences among Pemex vs Certifiers 2P and 3P
NATIONAL SHARE OF THE DIFFERENCES
OIL RESERVES GAS RESERVES BOE RESERVES
1P 2P 3P 1P 2P 3P 1P 2P 3P
Northeastern Marine Region
Southwestern Marine Region
Northern Region
Southern Region
All of the differences were less than 5%
Official 1P reserves 2012
32
1P Reserves (mmb – pce)
Production
Official 2P and 3P Reserves 2012
33
2P Reserves (mmb – pce)
3P Reserves (mmb – pce)
34
Conclusions• For the first time in the history of Mexico, there’s an independent agency that
reviews the process of Pemex and the certifying companies.
• For the first time in history, Mexico’s reserves numbers are within 10% of thosecalculated by third parties.
• Current guidelines are the result of improvements to the previous guidelines.Collaboration between CNH, Sener and Pemex allowed identification of theelements that needed to be reviewed. These improvements allow us to havehigher (reasonable) certainty in the hydrocarbon reserves.
• The new guidelines contain elements that are clearer and that are fully acceptedby all the entities involved in this process: CNH, Pemex and SENER.
• The new guidelines allow better analyses and avoid unnecessary revisionprocesses.
35
Reserves
Regulatory Framework (Government, Regulatory Bodies)
Company Guidelines
Project‐Based
Resource Framework
PRMS ‐ SEC
EXPLORACION Y PRODUCCION
UNFC
Conclusions
36
Technical Economic
Static Model Dynamic Model
Prices
Opex
Capex
Production
Productivity ModelEconomic Analysis
$
Development Plan
x
+
–
NPV
Reserves Approval Guidelines
Conclusions
37
Thanks!
www.cnh.gob.mx
top related