analyzing-decommissioning-obligations

Evaluates asset retirement and decommissioning liabilities with cost estimation, timing analysis, and funding adequacy assessment. Use when analyzing decommissioning costs, evaluating ARO exposure, or assessing abandonment liability.

11 stars

Best use case

analyzing-decommissioning-obligations is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.

Evaluates asset retirement and decommissioning liabilities with cost estimation, timing analysis, and funding adequacy assessment. Use when analyzing decommissioning costs, evaluating ARO exposure, or assessing abandonment liability.

Teams using analyzing-decommissioning-obligations should expect a more consistent output, faster repeated execution, less prompt rewriting.

When to use this skill

  • You want a reusable workflow that can be run more than once with consistent structure.

When not to use this skill

  • You only need a quick one-off answer and do not need a reusable workflow.
  • You cannot install or maintain the underlying files, dependencies, or repository context.

Installation

Claude Code / Cursor / Codex

$curl -o ~/.claude/skills/analyzing-decommissioning-obligations/SKILL.md --create-dirs "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/CaseMark/skills/main/skills/capital/analyzing-decommissioning-obligations/SKILL.md"

Manual Installation

  1. Download SKILL.md from GitHub
  2. Place it in .claude/skills/analyzing-decommissioning-obligations/SKILL.md inside your project
  3. Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill

How analyzing-decommissioning-obligations Compares

Feature / Agentanalyzing-decommissioning-obligationsStandard Approach
Platform SupportNot specifiedLimited / Varies
Context Awareness High Baseline
Installation ComplexityUnknownN/A

Frequently Asked Questions

What does this skill do?

Evaluates asset retirement and decommissioning liabilities with cost estimation, timing analysis, and funding adequacy assessment. Use when analyzing decommissioning costs, evaluating ARO exposure, or assessing abandonment liability.

Where can I find the source code?

You can find the source code on GitHub using the link provided at the top of the page.

SKILL.md Source

# Analyzing Decommissioning Obligations

Evaluates asset retirement and decommissioning liabilities (AROs) for energy, mining, and infrastructure assets — covering cost estimation, timing analysis, discount rate selection, and funding adequacy assessment.

## When To Use

- Underwriting an acquisition of producing oil & gas properties, mines, or power plants with end-of-life obligations
- Auditing an existing ARO balance sheet provision under ASC 410 / IAS 37 / IFRS 16
- Assessing abandonment liability exposure in a reserve-based lending or project finance context
- Evaluating whether a decommissioning trust, surety bond, or escrow is adequately funded
- Comparing operator-submitted decommissioning cost estimates against independent benchmarks
- Stress-testing decommissioning timing assumptions under accelerated decline or regulatory scenarios

## Inputs To Gather

- **Asset inventory**: Well/facility/mine count, location, water depth (offshore), installation type, age, and expected end-of-life date
- **Operator cost estimates**: Plugging & abandonment (P&A) cost per well, facility removal cost, site restoration cost, and any salvage credit assumptions
- **Regulatory requirements**: Jurisdiction-specific plugging rules, idle-well timelines, bond/financial assurance requirements [VERIFY per state/country]
- **Discount rate inputs**: Credit-adjusted risk-free rate used for present-value calculation; inflation rate assumption for cost escalation
- **Funding mechanisms**: Existing trust balances, letters of credit, surety bonds, parent guarantees, or insurance
- **Production/reserve data**: Remaining reserve estimates and decline curves to anchor decommissioning timing
- **Third-party benchmarks**: Regional P&A cost databases (e.g., BSEE data for Gulf of Mexico, state plugging cost studies)

## Workflow

1. **Scope the asset base** — Categorize assets by type (wells, platforms, pipelines, surface facilities, mines), geography, and regulatory regime. Confirm which entities bear the obligation (working interest owners, operators, predecessors-in-title).

2. **Estimate gross decommissioning costs** — For each asset category, compile or develop unit cost estimates. For offshore: platform removal, conductor cutting, P&A per well, pipeline decommissioning, site clearance. For onshore: P&A, surface equipment removal, soil remediation, pit closure. For mining: reclamation earthwork, water treatment, long-term monitoring. Flag any estimates older than 2 years for re-benchmarking.

3. **Apply net revenue interest and working interest splits** — Allocate gross costs to the entity under analysis based on ownership percentages. Identify joint-interest partners and assess their creditworthiness for cost-sharing.

4. **Determine timing assumptions** — Map each asset's expected decommissioning date using remaining reserves, production decline curves, or lease expiration. Model a base case and an accelerated scenario (e.g., commodity price collapse triggering early shut-in).

5. **Calculate present value of ARO** — Discount future costs to present value using a credit-adjusted risk-free rate. Escalate nominal costs at an appropriate inflation rate (typically 2–3% for oilfield services; [VERIFY] current service-cost inflation environment). Reconcile to the entity's reported ARO if auditing an existing balance.

6. **Assess funding adequacy** — Compare the PV of obligations against existing financial assurance (trusts, bonds, escrows). Calculate the funding gap. Evaluate whether the operator can self-fund from projected cash flows or requires incremental assurance.

7. **Evaluate regulatory and credit risk** — Identify jurisdictions with orphan-well programs, supplemental bonding requirements, or recent rule changes that may increase near-term cash calls [VERIFY]. Assess the risk that joint-interest partners default, shifting costs to the entity under analysis.

8. **Sensitivity analysis** — Stress-test key variables: cost escalation rate (+/- 25%), timing acceleration (5-year pull-forward), discount rate (+/- 100 bps), and partner default scenarios.

## Output

- **Executive summary**: Total estimated gross and net decommissioning liability (undiscounted and PV), funding gap, and key risk factors
- **Asset-level schedule**: Table of assets with per-unit cost estimate, expected decommissioning year, and PV of obligation
- **Funding gap analysis**: Current assurance vs. required assurance, with timeline of projected shortfalls
- **Sensitivity matrix**: PV of ARO under base, upside, and downside scenarios for cost, timing, and discount rate
- **Risk flags**: Assets with near-term regulatory deadlines, underfunded bonds, non-creditworthy partners, or stale cost estimates
- **Recommendations**: Specific actions — e.g., increase bonding by $X, negotiate holdback in acquisition, reclassify timing for wells with <1 year of reserves

## Quality Checks

- Confirm cost estimates are benchmarked against recent comparable operations, not solely operator self-reports
- Verify discount rate is consistent with the entity's credit profile and accounting policy (ASC 410 vs. IFRS provisions) [VERIFY]
- Ensure timing assumptions align with reserve reports and are not mechanically tied to lease terms alone
- Check that salvage value credits are conservatively estimated and supported by scrap-market data
- Validate that all assets with legal or contractual retirement obligations are captured — including idle/shut-in wells and orphaned infrastructure
- Confirm funding adequacy analysis accounts for the correct bonding/assurance type per jurisdiction [VERIFY]
- Flag any obligation where PV exceeds 10% of asset acquisition price or net asset value as a material risk item

Related Skills

We are still matching the closest adjacent skills for this page. In the meantime, continue through the full directory.