Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

60
MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 203

description

majalah untuk appraisal

Transcript of Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

Page 1: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

�Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

Page 2: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

2 Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

Page 3: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

3Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

Redaksi Media Penilai menerima tulisan, artikel, pengalaman profesional serta informasi terkait dengan profesi penilai.Diharapkan tulisan yang dikirim ke redaksi Media Penilai harap melampirkan identitas diri

beserta CV penulis. Terima kasih.

Pelindung: Pengurus Pusat MAPPI – Pemimpin Redaksi: Ir. Karmanto, M.Ec. Dev, MAPPI (Cert.) – Sekretaris Redaksi: R.A. Dewi Kencanawati, SE, MAPPI (Cert.) – Dewan Redaksi: Ir. Karmanto, M.Ec. Dev, MAPPI (Cert.), Muhammad Adlan, M.Ec. Dev, SSi, MAPPI (Cert.), R.A. Dewi Kencanawati, SE, MAPPI (Cert.), Ir. Budi Prasodjo, M.Ec. Dev. MAPPI (Cert.), Iwan Bachron, SE, MAPPI (Cert.), Yudistira Ananda, SE, Ak MAPPI (Cert.), Bunga Budiarti, SE – Redaksi: Suharto, Mukhlisin – Desain Grafis: Arif Maulana – Distribusi: Sekretaris MAPPI – Alamat Redaksi: Wisma Penilai, Jl. Kalibata Raya No. 11-12 E Jakarta Selatan, Telp: 021-7949079, Fax: 021-7949081 – Website: www.mappi.or.id – e-mail: [email protected]

Majalah Penilai diterbitkan oleh Masyarakat Profesi Penilai Indonesia (MAPPI), dibagikan secara gratis untuk kalangan anggota serta stakeholder profesi penilai

d a f t a R i s i

Menyambut Standar Baru

Pada April 2013, Pengurus Pusat Masyarakat Profesi Penilai Indonesia (MAPPI) mengesahkan Standar Penilaian Indonesia (SPI) 2013. SPI baru yang menggantikan SPI 2007 mulai berlaku efektif pada November nanti. Guna menyambut pember-

lakuan standar baru tersebut, Pusat Pembinaan Akuntan dan Jasa Penilai (PPAJP) Sekretariat Jenderal Kementerian Keuangan gencar mengadakan kegiatan sosialisasi. Kegiatan sosialisasi dilaksanakan sebanyak enam kali di Bogor dan Bandung, Jawa Barat, mulai Mei hingga Juli nanti. Tujuannya, begitu nanti mulai efektif berlaku, semua penilai sudah memahami dan menguasai, sehingga dapat menerapkannya dalam kegiatan penilaian.

Pendeknya, terhitung mulai November nanti, seluruh kegiatan penilaian sudah harus mengacu dan didasarkan pada ketentuan-ketentuan yang diatur dalam SPI 2013. Guna turut menyambut dan menyukses pemberlakuan standar baru tersebut, Majalah Media Penilai dalam Rubrik Laporan Khusus mengangkat topik tentang SPI 2013 tersebut. Diturunkan dalam beberapa tulisan, laporan ini membahas secara mendalam dan detail hal-hal yang berkaitan dengan SPI 2013. Diharapkan, melalui laporan tersebut, tersaji referensi yang cukup baik bagi profesi penilai maupun stakeholder lain untuk memahami keberadaan SPI 2013 ini. Dan, mari bersama-sama kita sambut standar profesi yang baru ini.

Di sini kami juga menginformasikan, Laporan Utama kali ini mengangkat topik tentang bisnis pertambangan batu bara. Dalam beberapa tahun terakhir, usaha tambang batu bara booming dan produk batu bara menjadi komoditas primadona di pasar ekspor. Namun, belakangan, bisnis tambang ini terguncang lantaran harga batu bara di pasar internasional terus merosot.

Lanskap bisnis tambang batu bara ini kami laporkan agar dapat menjadi referensi bagi profesi penilai yang telah dan akan banyak melakukan kegiatan penilaian di lingkungan usaha tambang batu bara. Dengan demikian, informasi tersebut dapat membantu dan memudahkan penilai dalam melakukan penilaian.

Pada rubrik-rubrik lain, Media Penilai edisi ini juga menyajikan berbagai laporan penting dan menarik, seperti penilaian pesawat terbang, artikel-artikel yang berkaitan dengan bidang penilaian, dan dinamika yang terjadi di lingkungan asosiasi. Diharapkan, semua laporan tersebut memperkaya khazanah informasi dan pengetahuan di bidang penilaian.

Selamat membaca.

n LAPORAN UTAMA4 – 11 Mencermati Fenomena Harga Properti di Ibu Kota12 – 14 TB Simatupang, dan Primadona Baru....15 – 18 Bila Harga Lahan Tak Terkendali...19 – 21 Tersebab Harga Tanah Dikendalikan Pasar

n WAWANCARA22 – 26 “Bisnis Perumahan itu Never Ending Story”

n PROFIL27 – 28 Bidan Para Master Penilai

n ARTIKEL29 – 35 Strategi Profesi Penilai dalam Mencegah Korupsi dan Kejahatan Perbankan

n INFO MAPPI36 Seminar Banjir dan Harga Properti

n LAPORAN KHUSUS37 – 41 Problem Daerah Memungut PBB42 – 44 Mari Bermain di NJOP

n ARTIKEL45 – 51 Optimalisasi Aset Dalam Perspektif UUPA

n INFO MAPPI52 – 53 Selamat Datang USP Baru

n ARTIKEL56 – 58 ImplementasiFI

LE L

AM

A

Page 4: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

� Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

L a p o R a n U t a m a

Galaunya Bisnis Batu BaraDidera tren penurunan harga dan stok yang kian melimpah, usaha tambang batu bara nasional mulai limbung. Dikhawatirkan, cadangan batu bara akan cepat ludes tanpa banyak memberi manfaat bagi kepentingan ekonomi nasional. Diperlukan adanya kebijakan dan pengaturan yang visioner.

Galau. Satu kata yang pas buat menggambarkan kondisi usaha tambang batu bara di Indonesia saat ini. Banyak faktor yang

menyebabkan bisnis batu bara kian tak

menentu, mulai dari tren kemerosotan harga di pasar dunia, stok yang kian melimpah karena pemainnya semakin banyak, gejolak ekonomi kawasan, hingga regulasi yang tumpang tindih dan tidak visioner.

Dalam beberapa bulan terakhir, di sejum-lah daerah yang menjadi sentra tambang batu bara diberitakan mulai terjadi pemutusan hubungan kerja (PHK) terhadap ratusan, bah-kan mungkin ribuan, para pekerja tambang batu bara. Di Kalimtan Selatan, misalnya, saat ini tercatat ada sekitar 70 ribu orang yang bekerja di pertambangan batu bara. Dari jumlah itu, diperkirakan sebanyak 25 pekerja akan terkena PHK pada tahun 2013 ini. Di daerah lain, juga dilaporkan banyak perusa-haan tambang batu bara mulai merumahkan karyawannya.

Itulah salah satu dampak dari merosotnya

Page 5: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

�Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

L a p o R a n U t a m a

harga batu bara di pasar internasional. Tren merosotnya harga yang signifikan tersebut memang telah memukul perusahaan-peru-sahaan tambang batu bara, terutama bagi perusahaan-perusahaan kelas menengah ke bawah. Mereka mulai ada yang mengurangi, bahkan menghentikan, produksi. Karena itu, karyawan pun mulai dirumahkan.

“Perusahaan-perusahaan tambang batu bara yang kecil-kecil yang paling terpukul,” ujar Ketua Umum Asosiasi Pertambangan Batu Bara Indonedia (APBI) Bob Kaman-danu. Diakui Bob, fluktuasi harga memang sulit diprediksi, dan penurunan harga batu bara yang terjadi saat ini memang di luar perkiraan. “Jangan lagi bermimpi harga akan naik secara agresif,” Bob menambahkan.

Bob Kamandanu, yang juga Presiden PT Delma Mining Corporation, sebuah perusahaan batu bara pemegang Perjanjian Karya Pengusahaan Pertambangan Batu Bara (PKP2B) generasi ketiga, menjelas-kan, fenomena fluktuasi harga batu bara ini sebenarnya sudah beberapa kali terjadi dalam sepuluh tahun terakhir. Dijelaskan, batu bara yang sebelumnya tidak dilirik sehingga har-ganya rendah, mulai tercium bakal menjadi komoditas primadona sejak 2004, ketika ha-sil tambang tersebut banyak dijadikan bahan bakar pembangkit listrik. Sejak itu, kata Bob, mulai banyak pengusaha yang terjun di bisnis tambang batu bara.

“Sebelum 2004 harganya murah, banyak yang merugi. Kalaupun untung, untungnya paling 1-2 dollar AS,” cerita Bob. Harga mulai naik karena tingginya permintaan dari China dan India yang membutuhkan batu bara untuk pembangkit listrik. Sejak 2006, demikian kata Bob, harga batu bara mulai merangkak naik di kisaran 50-60 dollar AS per metrik ton. Puncaknya terjadi pada 2007 dan 2008. Ketika itu harga batu bara di pasaran internasional bak meteor, melesat tinggi menembus batas 100 dollar AS. Bahkan sempat menyentuh angka 170 dollar AS per metrik ton.

Nah, ketika harga batu bara mencapai puncaknya, terjadi krisis keuangan global yang dipicu oleh masalah subprime mortgage di Amerika Serikat. Akibatnya, memasuki paro kedua 2008, permintaan dunia akan batu bara menurun harganya pun ikut jatuh dan berada di kisaran 55-60 dollar AS. Banyak perusahaan tambang batu bara yang collaps. Beruntung, kejatuhan harga batu bara ketika

itu hanya berlangsung selama enam bulan. Sebab, perekonomian kawasan Asia ternyata tidak terlalu terkena dampak krisis keuangan global. Terbukti, pada 2009 permintaan dari negara-negara di Asia, terutama China, India, Jepang, dan Korea Selatan mulai naik dan harga batu bara pun kembali membaik. Pada 2010 harga batu bara sudah kembali menyen-tuh level 100 dollar AS dan puncaknya terjadi pada 2011, di mana di pasar internasional batu bara sudah diperdagangkan di kisaran harga 120 dollar AS per metrik ton.

Namun, lanjut Bob Kamandanu, mema-suki 2012, tren harga batu bara di pasaran internasional mulai merosot. Sialnya, hingga kini sudah memasuki tahun kedua, belum ada tanda-tanda harga batu bara kembali membaik seperti sebelumnya. “Ini sudah

tahun kedua dan harganya masih turun,” Bob Kamandanu menegaskan.

Hal ini terjadi, menurut analisa Bob Ka-mandanu, disebabkan dua hal sekaligus. Per-tama, krisis ekonomi yang melanda kawasan Eropa dan belum membaiknya perekonomian Amerika Serikat. Sehingga, China dan Je-pang pun mulai terkena imbasnya. Kedua, usaha tambang batu bara di tingkat global juga semakin banyak. “Demand menurun dan stok dunia kian melimpah,” tandas Bob Kamandanu. Karena itu, imbuhnya, sulit mengharapkan harga batu bara kembali tinggi seperti di level sebelumnya dalam waktu dekat. Pada perdagangan Mei 2013, misalnya, harga batu bara di pasar interna-sional memang mengalami sedikit koreksi, namun baru berada di kisaran 87,55 dollar AS per metrik ton.

Anomali IndonesiaData yang dipublikasi Bank Indonesia

(BI) juga menunjukkan hal yang sama. Menurut hasil survei BI berjudul “Indikator Aktivitas Ekonomi Terpilih dan Asesmen Suksektor Ekonomi” yang dilansir Septem-ber 2012, penurunan harga batu bara masih akan terjadi hingga akhir tahun 2013 ini. BI memperkirakan harga rata-rata batu bara pada 2013 sekitar 85 dollar AS per metrik ton. Dengan demikian, jika dibandingkan dengan harga rata-rata periode Januari-November 2012 yang sebesar 96,4 dollar AS, berarti terjadi penurunan sekitar 11,8 persen.

Namun demikian, BI mencatat adanya anomali dalam bisnis batu bara di Indonesia. Meskipun harga di pasar global terus mero-

450.000

400.000

350.000

300.000

250.000

200.000

150.000

100.000

50.000

30.000

25.000

20.000

15.000

10.000

5.000

0

(Ribu Ton) (Ribu $US)

20062005 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

4.1796.190

26.178

6.977

10.305

13.765

17.801

348.055

124.009

190.883 205.895 196.272232.121

286.856

26.925

383.966

Volume ekspor nilai ekspor

Grafik Volume Ekspor dan Nilai Ekspor Batubara Indonesia 2005 – 2012

Sumber: Diolah dari Statistik Ekspor Bank Indonesia (BI)

Bob Kamandanu

Page 6: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

� Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

L a p o R a n U t a m a

sot, volume ekspor juga mengalami kenai-kan signifikan. Menurut catatan BI, selama periode 2008-2011, volume ekspor batu bara yang terus mengalami peningkatan signifikan lantaran memang didorong oleh permintaan dan harga yang tinggi di pasar internasional. Namun, ketika harga merosot dan permintaan dunia mengalami penurunan sejak 2012, ekspor batu bara dari Indonesia tetap tinggi dan volumenya cenderung naik.

Data yang dirilis Direktorat Jenderal Perdagangan Luar Negeri (Ditjen PLN) Kementerian Perdagangan (Kemendag) se-akan mengkonfirmasi prediksi BI tersebut. Pada kuartal I 2013 ini saja, volume ekspor batu bara sudah mencapai 99 juta ton de-ngan nilai 5,95 miliar dollar AS atau naik 32 persen dibandingkan dengan periode yang sama tahun sebelumnya sebesar 75 juta ton. Ditjen PLN Kemendag mencatat, total ekspor Januari-Maret 2013 telah mencapai 34 persen dari total rencana ekspor 2013 sebesar 292 juta ton.

Data yang diperoleh dari Kementerian Energi dan Sumber Daya Mineral (ESDM) memang menunjukkan bahwa sebagian besar produksi batu bara nasional diekspor dan trennya terus meningkat. Seperti terlihat pada tabel, pada 2008 produksi batu bara sebesar 240 juta ton. Dari jumlah itu, sebesar 187 juta ton atau 77,9 persen diekspor dan yang untuk memenuhi kebutuhan pasar domestik hanya 53 juta ton atau 22,1 persen.

Pada 2009, produksi meningkat menjadi 254 juta ton. Dari jumlah itu, yang diekspor sebesar 198 juta ton atau 78 persen dan hanya 56 juta ton atau 22 persen yang untuk pasar domestik. Begitu juga pada 2010, produksi naik lagi menjadi 275 juta ton dan yang diekspor sebanyak 208 juta ton atau 75,6 persen sementara yang untuk pasar domestik 67 juta ton atau 24,4 persen. Ketika harga batu bara mencapai puncaknya pada 2011, volume produksi dan ekspor juga melon-jak. Produksi menjadi 353 juta ton sedang volume ekspornya sebesar 273 juta ton atau

77,3 persen. Sementara itu, yang untuk pasar domestik 80 juta ton atau 22,7 persen. Dan, seperti anomali yang disebut BI, ketika harga mulai turun pada 2012, produksi dan ekspor batu bara tetap tinggi. Produksi tetap naik menjadi 386 juta ton, begitu juga dengan volume ekspor naik menjadi 304 juta ton atau 78,8 persen dari total produksi. Pada tahun 2013 ini, Kementerian memprediksi produksi dan ekspor tetap naik. Diprediksi, produksi akan naik menjadi 391 juta ton dan volume ekspor menjadi 306 juta ton atau 78,3 persen dari total produksi. Sementara, yang untuk memenuhi kebutuhan dalam negeri hanya sekitar 85 juta ton atau 21,7 persen.

Dari data-data tersebut tergambar bahwa, meskipun tren harga di pasaran internasional terus merosot, namun volume produksi batu bara di dalam negeri tetap tinggi bahkan cenderung naik. Dengan demikian, stok batu bara di dalam negeri akan semakin banyak. Di saat yang sama, supply batu bara di pasar global pun kian melimpah dengan semakin banyaknya pemain baru di pasar ekspor atau tren negara-negara pengekspor terus meningkatkan produksi mereka. “Di pasar dunia sudah terjadi oversupply,” kata Bob Kamandanu.

Dengan demikian, sesungguhnya produk batu bara Indonesia dalam kondisi terjepit. Di dalam negeri sendiri sudah terlalu banyak pemain sehingga produk berkelimpahan. Di pasar global, Indonesia mulai memperoleh pesaing yang tak bisa dianggap enteng. Sementara, di saat yang sama, ada kecende-

10 Besar Negara Produsen Batu Bara 2011

Negara Produksi (Juta Ton) Persentase Produksi DuniaChina 3.576 45,9AS 1.004 12,9India 586 7,5Australia 414 5,3Indonesia 376 4,8Rusia 334 4,3Afrika Selatan 253 3,3Jerman 189 2,4Polandia 139 1,8Kazakhstan 117 1,5Lain-lain 795 10,3Total 7.783 100,0

Sumber: International Energy Agency 2011

Page 7: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

�Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

L a p o R a n U t a m a

rungan permintaan menurun sebagai dampak dari krisis ekonomi Eropa dan Amerika Seri-kat. Sejumlah negara pengekspor, misalnya, sudah mulai ancang-ancang mematok target ekspor tinggi. Australia, misalnya, tahun ini mematok target ekspor sekitar 189 juta ton, naik 11 persen dari tahun lalu. Adapun Kolombia menargetkan volume ekspornya mencapai 79 juta ton. Di pasar ekspor, Indo-nesia juga harus berhadapan dengan Afrika Selatan dan Kazakhstan yang produksi batu baranya terus membaik.

Sementara itu, China yang merupakan pasar ekspor terbesar Indonesia juga mulai

menurunkan permintaannya. Apalagi, China juga mulai meningkatkan kapasitas produksi batu bara dalam negeri yang mencapai 750 ton per tahun. Dengan semakin banyaknya pemain baru dan negara pengekspor mening-katkan produksinya, sementara tingkat kon-sumsi cenderung menurun, maka stok batu bara di pasar global akan kian melimpah. Padahal, menurut analisa yang dirilis Harvest International Futures, stok batu bara dunia pada 2012 masih tersisa sekitar 80 persen. Berdasarkan berbagai kondisi tersebut, Bob Kamandanu sangat pesimistis harga batu bara cepat membaik.

Dengan lanskap pasar batu bara di tingkat dunia yang seperti ini, menurut perhi-tungan hasil survei BI, margin usaha tambang batu bara akan tertekan alias mengalami penurunan keuntungan. Meskipun hingga saat ini tingkat nonperforming loan (NPL) masih terbilang rendah, yaitu 0,75 persen untuk kredit modal kerja dan 1,11 persen untuk kredit investasi, BI mengingatkan agar kalangan perbankan mulai berhati-hati dalam menyalurkan kredit di sektor pertambangan batu bara.

Dilema PengaturanDihadapkan pada kondisi pasar global

yang kurang menguntungkan seperti itu, menurut Direktur Pembinaan Pengusahaan Batu Bara pada Direktorat Jenderal Mine-ral dan Batu Bara Kementerian Energi dan Sumber Daya Mineral (ESDM) R Edi Prasodjo, pelaku bisnis tambang batu bara nasional memang mengalami dilema. Jika harus mengurangi atau bahkan menghentikan produksi akibat harga yang merosot, menurut Edi Prasodjo, jelas mereka akan menderita kerugian yang lebih besar.

“Mereka sudah berinvestasi sangat besar. Jika tidak berproduksi, mereka akan semakin rugi,” jelas Edi Prasodjo. Tak ada pilihan lain, imbuhnya, perusahaan-perusa-haan tambang batu bara tersebut harus tetap berproduksi dan menjual produksinya untuk menutup biaya operasional perusahaan. Dijelaskan Edi Prasodjo, saat ini tak sedikit perusahaan tambang batu bara yang sudah melewati masa eksplorasi dan kini memasuki tahap produksi. “Tentu mereka tidak mau rugi begitu saja, dan karena itu harus tetap berproduksi. Dengan berproduksi, setidak-nya dapat memperkecil kerugian mereka,” jelasnya.

Karena pasar domestik juga sangat terba-tas, demikian Edi Prasdjo melanjutkan, tidak ada pilihan lain, produksi batu bara nasional harus dilempar di pasar ekspor. “Berapa pun harganya, produk batu bara tersebut harus dilempar di pasar ekspor, tidak mungkin ditimbun di dalam negeri,” Edi Prasdjo menjelaskan.

Di pasar ekspor, lanjutnya, produksi batu bara Indonesia sudah memiliki market yang jelas, yaitu China, Jepang, Korea Selatan, dan Taiwan. Hanya, diakui Edi Prasodjo, kini batu bara Indonesia memang mulai menghadapi pesaing yang berat di pasar in-

10 Besar Negara Pengekspor Batu Bara 2011

Negara Volume Ekspor (Juta Ton)Indonesia 309Australia 285Rusia 99AS 85Kolombia 76Afrika Selatan 70Kazakhstan 34Kanada 24Vietnam 23Mongol 22Lain-lain 14Total 1.041

Sumber: International Energy Agency 2011

10 Besar Negara Pengimpor Batu Bara 2011

Negara Volume Impor (Juta Ton)China 177Jepang 175Korea 129India 101China Taipe 66Jerman 41Inggris 32Turki 24Italia 23Malaysia 21Lain-lain 213Total 1.002

Sumber: International Energy Agency 2011

Page 8: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

� Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

L a p o R a n U t a m a

ternasional, seperti Australia, Afrika Selatan, Kolombia, dan Kazakhstan. “Tapi, sejauh ini pasar ekspor kita masih stabil. Aman,” ujarnya.

Hanya, menurutnya, industri pertam-bangan batu bara nasional memang saatnya dibenahi. Sebab, lanjut Edi Prasodjo, saat ini pelaksanaan kegiatan penambangan batu bara di Indonesia seperti centang-perenang. Undang-Undang (UU) Nomor 4 Tahun 2009 tentang Pertambangan Mineral dan Batu Bara beserta peraturan-peraturan turunannya pun sulit diimplementasikan.

Edi Prasodjo memberi contoh, saat ini terdapat ribuan izin usaha pertambangan (IUP) yang hampir semuanya dikeluarkan sebelum UU Minerba diterbitkan pada 2009. Menurut catatan Kementerian ESDM, saat ini setidaknya ada 10.780 pemegang IUP. Dari jumlah itu, sebanyak 6.907 merupakan IUP mineral dan 3.973 IUP batu bara. Arti-nya, di seluruh Indonesia terdapat hampir 4000 pemegang IUP batu bara. Itu belum termasuk yang statusnya Perjanjian Karya Pengusahaan Pertambangan Batu Bara (PKP2B) alias pemegang konsesi tambang batu bara. Dari total jumlah IUP batu bara tersebut, sebanyak 2.518 IUP sedang dalam tahap eksplorasi dan 1.355 IUP sudah dalam tahap operasi produksi.

Masalahnya, menurut Edi Prasodjo, ter-dapat ribuan IUP yang ternyata bermasalah,

seperti bermasalah dari segi legal-formal maupun tumpang tindih dari segi wilayah atau lokasi penambangannya. Kebanyakan IUP bermasalah tersebut, imbuh Edi Pra-sodjo, diterbitkan oleh kepala daerah, baik itu gubernur maupun bupati. Selain marak terjadi praktek jual beli IUP, menurut Edi Prasodjo, banyak terjadi konflik dan sengketa pertambangan baik antara pengusaha dengan masyarakat, antarpengusaha sendiri, maupun antara pengusaha dengan pemerintah daerah pemberi izin.

Sebagai contoh, demikian Edi Prasodjo memberi gambaran, dulu setiap menjelang pemilihan umum kepala daerah (pemilukada) banyak daerah yang mengobral IUP. Tujuan-nya tak lain untuk mencari dana kampanye. “Sampai ada guyonan IUP pilkada,” kata Edi Prasodjo. Karena itu, imbuhnya, banyak kasus di satu wilayah pertambangan muncul lebih dari satu IUP. “Ini menjadi sumber konflik dan sengketa,” tandasnya.

Karena itulah, pemerintah sebagai regulator, dalam hal ini Kementerian ESDM, mulai melakukan penataan, di antaranya melalui program Clean and Clear (CnC). Setiap IUP akan ditelusuri berbagai aspek-nya sehingga memenuhi syarat untuk di-nyatakan berstatus “bersih” dan “benar”. IUP yang tidak memenuhi syarat CnC otomatis akan dicabut. Hingga kini, dari 2.518 IUP eksplorasi yang berstatus CnC sebanyak 1.338 perusahaan dan yang belum sebanyak 1.180 perusahaan. Sementara itu, dari 1.355 IUP operasi produksi, yang sudah berstatus CnC sebanyak 897 perusahaan dan yang belum memenuhi syarat CnC sebanyak 458 perusahaan.

Sementara itu, penyesuaian usaha tam-bang yang berstatus konsesi, baik KK mau-pun PKP2B, juga belum berjalan mulus. Sesuai dengan perintah UU Pertambangan Minerba, usaha tambang dengan status konsesi harus disesuaikan paling lambat

R Edi Prasodjo

Page 9: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

�Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

L a p o R a n U t a m a

setahun sejak UU tersebut diundangkan. Setidaknya ada enam poin yang harus disesuaikan dengan ketentuan UU tersebut, yaitu mengenai batasan luas lahan tambang maksimal 25.000 hektare, perpanjangan kontrak diubah menjadi IUP, kenaikan tarif royalti untuk negara, pembangunan unit pengolahan dan pemurnian (smelter), divestasi, dan penggunaan barang dan jasa pertambangan domestik.

Namun, hingga kini proses negosiasi dengan perusahaan pemegang KK maupun PKP2B untuk menyesuaikan dengan keten-tuan UU Pertambangan Minerba tidak berja-lan mulus. Saat ini, total ada 118 perusahaan pemegang konsesi KK dan PKP2B. Dari jumlah itu, terdapat 42 perusahaan pemegang konsesi KK dan 76 perusahaan pemegang konsesi PKP2B. Bayangkan, hingga empat tahun UU Pertambangan Minerba diterbit-kan, baru 14 perusahaan pemegang konsesi yang mau duduk untuk berunding. Mereka terdiri dari 12 perusahaan pemegang konsesi PKP2B dan dua perusahaan pemegang KK. Selebihnya belum jelas penyelesaiannya seperti apa.

Yang jelas, menurut Bob Kamandanu, jika merujuk pada UU Pertambangan Miner-ba, banyak sekali terjadi pelanggaran hukum dan banyak sekali perusahaan tambang, baik disengaja maupun tidak, yang melakukan pelanggaran hukum. Pemerintah sendiri, menurutnya, selama ini tidak tegas dan tidak konsisten dalam menegakkan aturan. Ke-bijakan-kebijakan dan peraturan-peraturan baru yang dibuat pemerintah belakangan, imbuhnya, tidak menyelesaikan masalah bahkan justru membebani pelaku usaha tambang sebab sifatnya juga tambal sulam, seperti pembuatan smelter dan larangan ekspor produk tambang. “Ini yang membuat kondisi makin karut-marut,” tandas Bob Kamandanu.

Kebijakan VisionerMenurut Bob Kamandanu, pemerintah

seharusnya membuat arah kebijakan yang jelas di sektor pertambangan, termasuk di dalamnya tambang batu bara. Misalnya, demikian dia memberi contoh, dibuat suatu kebijakan agar pemain di bisnis tambang batu bara ini tidak terlalu banyak. Alasan-nya, penambangan batu bara membutuhkan keahlian khusus karena menyangkut ba-nyak aspek, mulai dari teknologi dan teknis

penambangan, nilai keenomian, hingga masalah kelestarian lingkungan.

Artinya, dalam konteks ini, menurut Bob Kamandanu, proses perizinan harus lebih ketat dan selektif. Sebab, menurutnya, jika siapa saja tanpa kualifikasi dan persyaratan tertentu bebas masuk dan pemainnya terlalu banyak, cadangan batu bara dalam negeri akan cepat habis tanpa banyak memberi nilai tambah bagi kepentingan ekonomi nasional. “Justru kerusakan yang ditinggalkan,” tandas Bos Kamandanu.

Berdasarkan data BI dalam laporan tentang “Indikator Aktivitas Ekonomi Ter-pilih dan Asesmen Suksektor Ekonomi” September 2012, saat ini cadangan batu bara Indonesia sebanyak 28 miliar ton atau sekitar 3,4 persen dari cadangan dunia, de-ngan lokasi utama di Pulau Kalimantan dan Sumatera. Menurut perhitungan BI dalam laporannya tersebut, jika diasumsikan rata-rata produksi sebesar 340 juta ton per tahun, maka cadangan batu bara Indonesia akan habis paling lama dalam waktu 82 tahun mendatang. Angka tersebut jauh lebih cepat dibandingkan Rusia (440 tahun), Amerika Serikat (245 tahun), Australia (184 tahun), dan dan India (101 tahun). Dengan demikian, tanpa dukungan kebijakan yang strategis,

tidak menutup kemungkinan ke depan In-donesia justru akan menjadi pengimpor batu bara untuk memenuhi kebutuhannya yang semakin meningkat, seperti halnya yang terjadi minyak bumi di mana Indonesia telah menjadi net importer.

Menurut Direktur Eksekutif APBI Su-priatna Sahalu, pemerintah memang harus menentukan arah kebijakan yang tepat. Ia mencontohkan, untuk menggenjot peneri-maan devisa, negara sudah saatnya tidak lagi mengandalkan produk tambang yang masih mentah. Artinya, kebijakan yang dibuat harus diarahkan untuk pengembangan dan peningkatan kapasitas industri manufaktur. Lagi, Supriatna memberi contoh, hampir tiap negara memiliki produk ekspor unggulan dari hasil olahan industri manufaktur. Jepang, misalnya, produk ekspor unggulannya mobil dan elektronik; Jerman mesin-mesin/alat-alat berat dan kesehatan; Amerika Serikat mesin perang, pesawat terbang, dan sebagainya; China produk-produk elektronok dan seba-gainya.

Indonesia, menurutnya, harus mencontoh negara-negara tersebut; tidak menjadikan bahan mentah dari sumber daya alam se-bagai produk ekspor unggulan, melainkan mengekspor barang-barang yang punya nilai

Januari

Februari

Maret

april

Mei

Juni

Juli

Agustus

September

Oktober

112,4109,29127,05115,58122,43112,87122,02105,61117,61102,12119,0396,65

118,2487,56

117,2184,65

116,2686,21

119,4286,04

2011 2012Dalam US$ per ton

Harga Batubara Acuan (FOB)

Sumber: Dirjen Minerba, Kementerian ESDM

Page 10: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

�0 Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

L a p o R a n U t a m a

tambah, terutama dari hasil olahan industri manufaktur. Dengan demikian, misalnya, se-luruh produksi batu bara tidak lagi diekspor, melainkan sepenuhnya untuk memenuhi kebutuhan industri dalam negeri.

“Saat ini yang terjadi justru sebaliknya,” Supriatna menegaskan. Sebagai gambaran, dari sisi produksi, produksi batu bara Indo-nesia masih kalah jauh dibandingkan dengan China, Amerika Serikat, dan India. Namun, Indonesia justru menjadi negara pengekspor batu bara terbesar. China dan India malah mengimpor. Amerika Serikat dan Rusia hanya sedikit mengekspor. Artinya, sebagian besar produk batu bara negara-negara terse-but dimanfaatkan sendiri untuk menggerak-kan perekonimian di dalam negeri. Untuk mendatangkan devisa, mereka mengekspor barang jadi atau bahan-bahan olahan yang punya nilai tambah.

Saat ini, diakui Supriatna, kondisinya memang belum memungkinkan untuk tidak mengekspor batu bara. Sebab, kebutuhan di dalam negeri memang sangat kecil sementara ada ribuan perusahaan tambang yang sudah berproduksi. Data Kementerian ESDM menunjukkan, kebutuhan dalam negeri pa-ling tinggi tidak sampai 25 persen dari total produksi. Pada 2012, misalnya, kebutuhan pasar domestik akan batu bara sebesar 82 juta ton. Saat itu, total produksinya mencapai

386 juta ton. Di dalam negeri, sebagian digu-nakan untuk pembangkit listrik (Pembangkit Listrik Tenaga Uap/PLTU). Sangat sedikit yang untuk kebutuhan industri. Misalnya, untuk pabrik semen hanya 8,4 juta ton; pabrik tekstil dan produk tekstil 1,93 juta ton; dan pabrik pupuk 1,3 juta ton.

Belakangan, sejak 2010 pemerintah menerbitkan aturan tentang domestic mar-ket obligation (DMO) dan disusul larangan ekspor. Melalui ketentuan tentang DMO, perusahaan-perusahaan tambang batu bara diwajibkan memenuhi kebutuhan dalam negeri terlebih dahulu sebelum melakukan ekspor pada 2014. Namun, kebijakan ini tak ubahnya seperti menggarami air laut. Tak ada dampaknya. Sebab, besaran DMO justru masih lebih kecil dibandingkan de-ngan kebutuhan riil pasar domestik. Sebagai contoh, DMO 2010 ditetapkan 64,9 juta ton, DMO 2011 sebesar 63 juta ton, DMO 2012 sebanyak 67,3 juta ton, dan DMO 2013 naik sedikit menjadi 74,3 juta ton.

Dari data tersebut terbaca bahwa paling tinggi DMO hanya mencapai 24 persen dari total produksi. Artinya, dengan ketentuan DMO pun, produk batu bara nasional tetap melimpah dan mau tidak mau harus diekspor. Kebijakan larangan ekspor dan keharusan membangun smelter diyakini juga tidak akan berjalan efektif. Sebab, biaya pembuatan

smelter tergolong sangat mahal, bahkan lebih mahal dari biaya investasi penambangannya. Untuk membangun satu smelter, misalnya, dibutuhkan biaya lebih dari 1 miliar dollar AS. Larangan ekspor diyakini juga tidak akan berjalan efektif lantaran daya serap pasar domestik masih sangat kecil.

“Untuk sementara, mau tidak mau memang harus diekspor. Dalam jangka panjang, saya setuju jika batu bara diutamakan untuk kebu-tuhan dalam negeri jika memang daya serapnya ada,” Supriatna Sahalu. Artinya, menurut Supriatna, sedini mungkin pemerintah harus menyusun kebijakan yang visioner.

Kondisi demikian diakui Edi Prasodjo. Mengingat kebutuhan negara akan devisa masih sangat tinggi, sementara daya serap industri di dalam negeri masih rendah, ekspor batu bara memang masih diutamakan. Dalam konteks ini, menurutnya, negara masih menganggap batu bara sebagai komoditas, lebih khusus lagi sebagai komoditas ekspor. Namun, dalam jangka panjang, menurutnya, negara akan memperlakukan batu bara sebagai energi. Dengan demikian, produk batu bara sepenuhnya akan dimanfaatkan untuk meng-gerakkan perekonomian nasional. “Tapi untuk menghidupkan industri dalam negeri memang masih butuh waktu,” akunya. Akhirnya, apa boleh buat, meskipun harganya rendah, batu bara pun tetap terus diekspor. q

Page 11: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

��Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

L a p o R a n U t a m a

Agar Tidak Lagi Menjual “Tanah Air”Pemerintah mulai menggulirkan kebijakan hilirisasi sektor pertambangan mineral dan batu bara. Tujuannya agar ekspor hasil-hasil tambang memiliki nilai tambah. Penerapannya tak semudah membalik telapak tangan.

Direktur Pembinaan Pengusa-haan Batubara pada Direktorat Jenderal Mineral dan Batu Bara Kementerian Energi dan Sumber

Daya Mineral (ESDM) R Edi Prasodjo punya guyonan menggelitik namun bernas soal kenapa pemerintah perlu menggulirkan pro-gram hilirisasi sektor pertambangan mineral dan batu bara (minerba). “Kalau hasil-hasil tambang diekspor begitu saja sebagai bahan

mentah tanpa melalui proses pengolahan lebih dulu, itu sama saja artinya kita menjual ‘tanah air’,” ujarnya.

Bukan tanah air yang menunjuk pada pengertian negara-bangsa, melainkan benar-benar tanah dan air dalam pengertian harfiah-nya. Artinya, tanah beserta seluruh kan-dungan yang ada di dalamnya dijual secara gelondongan begitu saja. Dan, tentu saja, dengan harga yang sangat murah diban-

dingkan berbagai kandungan yang mungkin ada di dalamnya. Artinya, dijual satu yang lain terikut semua.

Edi Prasodjo lalu memberi contoh di pertambangan mineral. Produknya berupa bijih besi atau nikel (metal). Untuk setiap satu ton tanah, menurut Edi Prasodjo, kadar bijih besinya hanya sekitar 7 persen, atau bahkan hanya 2 persen. Jadi, untuk tiap satu ton tanah, nikelnya kurang lebih hanya 20 kilogram. Dengan perhitungan tersebut, jika mau menjual 1 ton nikel, berarti harus menjual sekitar 600 kilogram tanah. Padahal, di dalam tanah tersebut tidak cuma terdapat kandungan bijih besi. Bisa jadi masih banyak kandungan lain yang juga tak kalah berharga dibandingkan dengan nikel.

Page 12: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

�2 Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

L a p o R a n U t a m a

Padahal, menurut Edi Prasodjo, jika produk nikel tersebut diolah terlebih da-hulu, harga jual bisa jauh lebih mahal. Dia memberi contoh, bijih nikel sebelum diolah harganya bisa jadi hanya 20 dollar AS per ton. “Kalau diolah harganya bisa lebih tinggi sampai 20-30 kalinya,” ujar Edi Prasodjo. Jika tanpa diolah dulu, lanjut dia, harganya murah karena masih berupa tanah. Selain itu, imbuhnya, kandung-kandung lain yang terikut akan dimanfaatkan pembeli yang bisa melakukan pengolahan sendiri. “Kita rugi dua kali,” tandasnya.

Hal itulah, menurut Edi Prasodjo, yang mendasari pemerintah menggulirkan kebi-jakan hilirisasi sektor pertambangan miner-ba. “Agar produk yang kita ekspor punya nilai tambah,” ujarnya.

Kebijakan hilirisasi tersebut, selain telah menjadi ketentuan dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 4 Tahun 2009 tentang Pertambangan Mineral dan Batubara (UU Minerba), juga telah ditegaskan melalui Peraturan Menteri Energi dan Sumber Daya Mineral Nomor 7 tahun 2012 tentang Peningkatan Nilai Tam-bah Mineral Melalui Kegiatan Pengolahan dan Pemurnian Mineral (Permen ESDM No-mor 7/2012). Permen tersebut juga mengatur soal larangan ekspor bijih (raw material/ore) mineral yang sebenarnya sudah mulai dite-rapkan sejak Mei 2012.

Hanya, penerapan kebijakan tersebut su-lit diwujudkan di lapangan. Sebab, pertama, biaya pembangunan pabrik pengolahan dan pemurnian (smelter) ternyata sangat-sangat

mahal, bahkan bisa jadi lebih mahal diban-dingkan dengan biaya investasi pertamba-ngannya sendiri. Untuk membangun sebuah smelter berskala besar, misalnya, minimal dibutuhkan investasi 1,5 miliar dollar AS. Dengan besarnya biaya yang dibutuhkan, perusahaan-perusahaan tambang menengah dan kecil sulit untuk bisa mengikuti kebi-jakan tersebut.

Data di Kementerian ESDM menyebut-kan, hingga April 2013 baru ada 7 smelter yang telah dibangun dan beroperasi. Semen-tara itu, tercatat ada 278 pengajuan rencana pembangunan smelter, namun entah kapan mulai dibangun dan beroperasi belum bisa dipastikan. Di samping itu, Kementerian ESDM juga mencatat ada 11 smelter yang berpotensi untuk dibangun.

Berbeda dengan mineral yang memang diwajibkan untuk hilirisasi melalui smelter, menurut Edi Prasodjo, untuk tambang batu bara posisi pemerintah hanya men-support. Sebab, menurutnya, karakteristik antara per-

tambangan mineral dan batu bara memang berbeda. Berbeda dengan produk nikel yang kemungkinan di dalamnya masih banyak kandungan lain, menurut Edi Prasodjo, produk batu bara bisa langsung digunakan untuk bahan pembakaran atau bisa diproses menjadi cair atau ditingkatkan kalorinya.

“Kebijakan dimaksudkan untuk mem-buat tambang mineral punya nilai tambah. Kalau di batu bara, kita men-support sifat-nya,” ujar Edi Prasodjo. Dengan kebijakan hilirisasi ini, menurut Edi Prasodjo, peme-rintah ingin agar seluruh cadangan minerba dapat dimanfaatkan sebesar-besarnya untuk kemakmuran rakyat. Sebab, imbuhnya, sum-ber daya dan cadangan minerba, meskipun jumlahnya relatif besar, tetap saja terbatas sifatnya, dan suatu saat pasti akan habis. “Dengan peningkatan nilai tambah, manfaat akan lebih besar,” tandasnya.

Direktur Eksekutif Asosiasi Pertamba-ngan Batu Bara Indonesia (APBI) Supriatna Suhala mengingatkan agar pemerintah juga

Supriatna Sahalu

Page 13: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

�3Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

L a p o R a n U t a m a

Fasilitas Pengolahan dan Pemurnian yang Berpotensi Dibangun

Perusahaan Lokasi Komoditas Investasi (Dollar AS)Antam Maluku Urata Nikel 1 MiliarIndonesia Cheminal Alumina Kalbar Bauksit 450 JutaBintang Delapan Energy Sulteng Nikel 282 JutaStargate Pacific Resource Sultra Nikel 1,8 MiliarMeratus Jaya Iron Steel Kalsel Besi 110 JutaSebuku Iron Lateritic Ore Kalsel Besi 1,16 MiliarIndoferro Banten Besi 133,5 JutaHarita Prima Abadi Mineral Kalsel Bauksit 2,28 MiliarPutra Mekongga Sejahtera Sultra Nikel 1,4 JutaIndomelt Sulsel Tembaga 700 JutaSumber Suryadaya Prima Jabar Pasir Besi 200 Juta

Sumber: Kementerian ESDM, April 2013

merumuskan kebijakan yang dapat mendo-rong dimanfaatkannya batu bara sebesar-besarnya untuk kebutuhan dalam negeri. Salah satunya, demikian usul Suapriatna, melalui program pengembangan produksi listrik murah. Dengan program memproduksi listrik murah, imbuhnya, seluruh cadangan batu bara dapat dimanfaatkan sepenuhnya untuk kepentingan dalam negeri.

Dalam perhitungan Supriatna, setiap negara pasti memiliki keinginan untuk mampu memproduksi listrik secara murah. Dengan demikian, seluruh kebutuhan akan energi listrik, baik untuk rumah tangga mau-

pun industri, dapat terpenuhi dengan biaya yang murah pula. Untuk bisa memproduksi listrih murah, pilihan yang paling mungkin adalah menggunakan batu bara. “Bisa juga tenaga nuklir, tapi terlalu berbahaya dan sudah mulai ditinggalkan,” ujarnya.

Supriatna membuat perbandingan, jika produksi listrik menggunakan bahan bakar minyak (BBM), per KWh biayanya sekitar 30-35 sen dollar AS. Sedangkan, kalau meng-gunakan batu bara, biayanya hanya sekitar 7 sen dollar AS atau Rp 70. Artinya, dengan batu bara, biaya produksi listrik bisa 4-5 kali lebih murah.

Karena itu, lanjutnya, sebenarnya peme-rintah tak perlu membuat aturan yang mela-rang-larang produk batu bara untuk diekspor. Jika daya serap pasar domestik tinggi, dengan sendirinya produksi batu bara akan dipasarkan di dalam negeri. Caranya, menu-rut Supriatna, salah satunya melalui program pengembangan listrik dengan bahan bakar batu bara. “Program ini dijadikan prioritas, pembangunan pembangkit listrik tenaga uap (PLTU) harus diperbanyak,” katanya.

Dengan program tersebut, menurutnya, seluruh kebutuhan listrik di dalam negeri akan terpenuhi. Bahkan, Indonesia bisa mengekspor listrik ke negara-negara tetangga, seperti Ma-laysia, Singapura, atau lainnya. Dengan arah kebijakan seperti itu, menurutnya, yang kelak diekspor bukan lagi batu bara, melainkan apa yang dihasilkan oleh batu bara, yang punya nilai tambah dengan harga lebih mahal.

Sebenarnya, bisa juga batu baru diolah lebih lanjut. Misalnya, dibuat cair menjadi semacam bensin. Namun, biaya pengolah-annya sangat mahal. Afrika Selatan pernah membuat proyek pengolahan seperti itu. Tapi rencana tersebut tak terwujud lantaran biaya terlalu mahal, mencapai Rp 90 triliun.

Jadi, menurut Supriatna, langkah yang paling feasible dan realistis agar cadangan batu bara dapat sebesar-besarnya diman-faatkan untuk kepentingan nasional dan tidak diekspor begitu saja, harus ada arah kebijakan dan prioritas pengembangan ener-gi. Untuk pembangkit listrik salah satunya. “Bisa juga dengan pengembangan kapasitas industry,” katanya. q

Page 14: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

�� Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

L a p o R a n U t a m a

Memulai dan Menilai Bisnis Batu Bara

Tidak gampang memulai bisnis batu bara. Begitu pula bagaimana menilai perusahaan bisnis batu bara. Apa yang harus dipersiapkan?

Dalam beberapa tahun terakhir, batu bara menjadi komoditas primadona untuk pasar ekspor. Ketika harganya melangit, keun-

tungan yang dijanjikan sangat menggiurkan. Tak aneh jika kemudian orang-orang berduit berbondong-bondong terjun ke bisnis per-tambangan batu bara tanpa merasa perlu mengetahui perihal batu bara.

Padahal, menurut ahli pertambangan Sukmandaru Prihatmoko, penambangan batu bara membutuhkan orang-orang memiliki keahlian khusus di bidangnya. Prosesnya pun, dari awal hingga akhir, harus melibat-kan banyak orang dengan keahlian khusus yang berbeda-beda. “Salah perhitungan sedikit saja, terjadi malapetaka,” ujar Suk-mandaru Prihatmoko yang juga pengurus Perhimpunan Ahli Pertambangan Indonesia (PERHAPI) ini.

Dijelaskan Sukmandaru, proses penam-bangan batu bara diawali dengan sebuah studi kelayakan (feasibility study). Kegiatan

ini meliputi tiga tahap sekaligus, yaitu tahap eksplorasi, penghitungan sumber daya, dan kemudian penghitungan cadangan. Pada tahap eksplorasi ini, menurutnya, dilakukan serangkaian penelitian untuk menemukan ada tidaknya kandungan batu bara dalam suatu wilayah atau lokasi. Jika ada, akan digali lebih dalam seberapa banyak kan-dungannya, bentuk dan posisinya di dalam bumi seperti apa, dan jauh dekatnya dengan permukaan tanah seperti apa.

“Semua kegiatan di tahap ini dilakukan oleh geologis,” ujar geologis jebolan Uni-versity of Tasmania ini. Data-data tersebut kemudian dikumpulkan dan diolah untuk menghitung besarnya sumber daya (re-source) batu bara di lokasi dimaksud. Jika jumlah resource sudah ketemu, imbuhnya, langkah selanjutnya adalah memasukkan faktor-faktor di luar aspek teknis-geologis tersebut. Misalnya, faktor metode penam-bangannya, metode pengolahannya, faktor transportasi dan pengangkutannya, marke-

tingnya, aspek lingkungan dan sosialnya, hingga faktor makroekonominya bagaimana. Termasuk, di dalam perhitungan tersebut harus memasukkan aspek-aspek pascatam-bang, seperti reklamasi dan rehabilitasi serta besaran biayanya.

Dari semua perhitungan tersebut kemu-dian keluar yang namanya cadangan batu bara. Artinya, akan keluar angka seberapa besar batu bara di lokasi tersebut yang bisa ditambang secara ekonomis. Setelah itu ke tahap asesmen aspek legalnya. Jika aspek legalnya beres, baru bisa diterbitkan yang namanya hasil studi kelayakan secara penuh. Hasil studi kelayakan itu pun masih harus diverifikasi lagi untuk mengkonfirmasi benar tidaknya proses dan prosedur kegiatan studi kelayakan tersebut. Jika proses verifikasi ini beres, barulah studi kelayakan tersebut dilengkapi dengan analisis dampak lingku-ngan (AMDAL).

Setelah itu barulah statusnya bisa disebut “layak tambang” untuk memasuki tahap operasi-produksi. Semua tahapan tersebut, menurut Sukmandaru Prihatmoko, ke-giatannya harus dilakukan atau melibatkan orang-orang yang memiliki keahlian khusus di bidang masing-masing, yang di dalam PERHAPI disebut competent person.

Setelah operasi produksi, menurut Sukmandaru Prihatmoko, produk batu bara yang dihasilkan ada beberapa jenis . Yaitu antrasit, bituminus, subbituminus, lignit, dan gambut. Antrasit adalah kelas batu bara tertinggi, dengan warna hitam berkilauan (luster) metalik, mengandung antara 86 98 persen unsur karbon (C) dengan kadar air kurang dari 8 persen. Bituminus mengandung 68-86 persen unsur karbon (C) dan berkadar air 8-10 persen dari beratnya. Subbituminus mengandung sedikit karbon dan banyak air, dan oleh karenanya menjadi sumber panas yang kurang efisien dibandingkan dengan bituminus. Lignit atau batu bara coklat adalah batu bara yang sangat lunak yang mengandung air 35-75 persen dari beratnya. Dan, gambut, berpori dan memiliki kadar air

Page 15: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

��Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

L a p o R a n U t a m a

di atas 75 persen serta nilai kalori yang pa-ling rendah. Sementara iru, Standar Nasional Indonesia (SNI) menetapkan jenis batubara berdasarkan nilai kalorinya, yaitu batu bara kalori rendah, < 5100 (gambut dan lignite); batu bara kalori sedang, 5100-6100 (batu bara subbituminous); batu bara kalori tinggi, 6100-7100 (batu bara bituminus); dan batu bara kalori sangat tinggi, > 7100 (batu bara bituminus dan antrasit).

Dengan proses yang demikian panjang dan rumit serta memerlukan keterlibatan banyak competent persons, menurut Suk-mandaru Prihatmoko, idealnya seorang penilai juga harus melibatkan competent person jika akan melakukan penilaian terha-dap perusahaan tambang batu bara. “Karena tidak gampang, tidak semua orang bisa, jadi idealnya penilai juga melibatkan competent person,” ujarnya.

Hal tersebut juga diakui Budi Martokoe-soemo, penilai bisnis yang telah berpengala-man melakukan penilaian tambang, termasuk tambang batu bara. “Memang tidak gampang, dan harus melibatkan competent person dari PERHAPI,” Budi menegaskan.

Budi memberikan contoh, jika hendak menilai sebuah perusahaan tambang, hal pertama yang harus diketahui seorang penilai adalah apa produk tambangnya. Jika nikel, misalnya, berarti penilai harus bisa mencari proyeksi harga nikel di pasar global. Untuk itu, diakui Budi, competent person dari PER-HAPI lebih jago dari penilai anggota Ma-syarakat Profesi Penilai Indonesia (MAPPI). Setelah memperoleh opini dari competent person tersebut, penilai bisa membanding-kannya dengan cash flow perusahaan, untuk kemudian menghitung produksi, harga, lalu membuat proyeksi.

Hal yang sama, menurutnya, dapat diterapkan pada perusahaan tambang batu bara. Dalam menilai perusahaan tambang batu bara, menurut Budi, penilai juga harus berani melibatkan banyak ahli di bidangnya, mulai ahli di bidang cadangan, pengolahan, produksi, legal, hingga harga di pasaran internasional. Berdasarkan hasil kerja dari ahli-ahli tersebutlah, demikian Budi, pe-nilai baru membuat proyeksi. “Tapi, lebih sudah menilai perusahaan tambang yang masih eksplorasi dibandingkan yang sudah produksi,” ujarnya.

Sementara itu, baik Otoritas Jasa Keuang-an (OJK) maupun MAPPI sebenarnya sudah

membuat peraturan penilaian pertambangan. Di OJK, penilaian properti pertambangan sudah dibuat saat pasal modal masih berada di bawah Badan Pengawas Pasar Modal dan Lembaga Keuangan (Bapepam-LK) melalui Peraturan No. VIII.C.4. MAPPI juga telah mengaturnya melalui Panduan Penerapan Pe-nilaian Indonesia (PPPI) 17 tentang Penilaian Properti Industri Pertambangan dalam Stan-dar Penilaian Indonesia (SPI) 2007.

Kepala Subdivisi Pengawasan Profesi Penunjang OJK R Yustinus Irwan Hardiyono, pada workshop “Penilaian Cadangan Tam-bang” yang dilaksanakan di Jakarta, 30 April 2013, menjelaskan, berdasarkan Peraturan No. VIII.C.4 obyek penilaian pada properti pertambangan meliputi aset cadangan dan aset noncadangan. Aset cadangan antara lain meliputi cadangan tambang, areal produktif, dan areal belum produktif. Sedangkan, aset noncadangan antara lain meliputi sarana dan prasarana properti, termasuk di dalamnya bangunan dan peralatan kerja.

Dalam melakukan kegiatan properti pertambangan, menurutnya, langkah pertama penilai wajib melakukan pengumpulan data dan analisis pendahuluan. Kegiatan ini me-liputi dua hal, yaitu yang berkaitan dengan aspek teknik dan aspek ekonomi. Aspek teknis, lanjut Yustinus Irwan Hardiyono, berkaitan dengan masalah kajian geologi dan eksplorasi, kajian geoteknik, kajian hidrogeo-logi, sistim penambangan, sistim pengolahan dan pemurnian, sistem pengangkutan, nisbah pengupasan (Stripping Ratio/SR), kadar batas rata-rata terendah (COG), dan ketebalan

batas rata-rata terambil (COT). Sementara itu, aspek ekonominya berkai-

tan dengan masalah infrastruktur, tenaga kerja, harga komoditas bahan galian dan per-saingan, jenis produk sampingan dan produk akhir, dan nilai dan prospek bahan galian. Di samping itu, penilai juga harus memperha-tikan aspek-aspek lain yang terkait, seperi aspek lingkungan, kesehatan, keselamatan kerja, dan aspek hukum.

Di dalam peraturan tersebut, demikian Yustinus Irwan Hardiyono, juga diatur masalah pendekatan penilaian untuk cada-ngan. Misalnya, Pendekatan Biaya (Cost Approach) digunakan untuk penilaian pada areal belum produktif (areal dalam tahap penyelidikan umum, eksplorasi, dan konstruksi) di Wilayah Izin Usaha Per-tambangan (WIUP). Adapun Pendekatan Pendapatan (Income Approach) digunakan untuk penilaian pada areal produktif (areal kawasan produktif dan areal belum produktif tetapi sudah dapat diukur besarnya cadangan tambang) di WIUP dengan menggunakan Metode Diskonto Arus Kas (Discounted Cash Flow Method/DCF).

Untuk penentuan nilai cadangan, menu-rutnya, dapat dilakukan dengan menghitung perkiraan penerimaan yang akan diperoleh pada tahun-tahun mendatang selama umur tambang dan didiskontokan menjadi nilai saat ini. Peraturan tersebut memang berlaku umum untuk penilaian properti pertamba-ngan. Meskipun begitu, menurutnya, dapat dijadikan pedoman dalam melakukan pe-nilaian properti pertambangan batu bara. q

Budi Martokoesoemo

Page 16: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

�� Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

L a p o R a n U t a m a

Tren Jual Beli Perusahaan Batu BaraMeskipun pasarnya fluktuatif, prospek industri tambang batu bara dipandang tetap menggiurkan. Tren pengambilalihan atau pembelian perusahaan batu bara menjadi pintu masuk menguasai pasar.

Dalam dua tahun terakhir, harga batu bara di pasar internasional memang mengalami penurunan ke titik terendah. Namun, tren

tersebut tak menyurutkan para pemilik modal untuk berburu untung dari industri tambang batu bara. Setidaknya, hal tersebut tergambar dari kian maraknya aksi korporasi dalam akuisi atau pembelian saham-saham

perusahaan tambang batu bara, terutama yang terekam dari lantai bursa.

Awal Januari 2013, misalnya, seperti dikutip sindonews.com, PT Perdana Karya Perkasa Tbk (PKPK) merilis rencana aksi korporasinya, yaitu mengakuisisi PT Indo Wana Bara Mining Coal (IWBMC) yang memiliki konsesi lahan batu bara seluas 5.000 hektare di Kutai Barat, Kalimantan

Timur (Kaltim). Nilai akuisisi mencapai sekitar Rp 5 triliun.

Rencana aksi korporasi tersebut didasar-kan pada cadangan batu bara yang dimiliki IWBMC sebanyak 447 juta metrik ton (MT). dari jumlah itu, sebanyak 300 juta ton merupakan cadangan terukur. Batu bara yang dihasilkan oleh lahan tersebut memiliki kualitas panas antara 4.800-5.500 kilo kalori per kilogram (Kcal/Kg). Dari aksi korporasi ini, PKPK akan meningkatkan kapasitas produksi hingga mencapai 2 juta ton per bulan dengan biaya investasi dan operasional relatif rendah.

Dengan akuisisi ini, ditargetkan terjadi peningkatan komposisi pendapatan PKPK

Page 17: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

��Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

L a p o R a n U t a m a

dari bidang usaha pertambangan pada tahun 2013 ini. Selain pertambangan, saat ini sekitar 80 persen dari pendapatan PKPK disumbang oleh sektor jasa konstruksi migas dan land clearing. Jika tambang IWBMC dan konsesi tambang SPL mulai berproduksi akhir 2013, kinerja perseroan akan mening-kat signifikan.

Masih di awal Januari 2013, Indus Coal, sebuah perusahaan yang terdaftar di Bursa Australia melakukan aksi korporasi dengan membeli 38 persen saham dua perusahaan yang memiliki tiga konsensi batu bara di Provinsi Jambi. Kedua perusahaan tersebut adalah PT Batanghari Energi Prima dan PT Berlian Mahkota Coal. Nilai pembeliannya mencapai 6,5 juta dollar AS, dan telah ter-catat di Bursa Australia.

Batanghari Energi Prima memiliki Blok 7 seluas 5.000 hektare dan Blok 8 seluas 4.380 hektare, sedangkan Berlian Mahkota Coal mengembangkan Blok 9 seluas 5.013 hektare. Lokasi tiga blok ini saling berdeka-tan, yaitu di Kabupaten Tebo, Jambi.

Indus Coal, dalam situs resminya, menjelaskan bahwa saat ini perusahaan tersebut telah memiliki proyek batu bara Kabupaten Muko-Muko, Bengkulu, seluas 2.337 hektare. Proyek itu memiliki batu bara dengan kalori 5.700-5.800 kcal/kg. Bagi Indus Coal, Indonesia dinilai cukup strategis karena pertumbuhan industri batu baranya cukup pesat dan merupakan salah satu negara eksportir batu bara terbesar di dunia.

Yang terbaru, dua perusahaan asing, yaitu PHI Group Inc dan Coke Resources, awal Mei 2013 dikabarkan telah mengakui-sisi perusahaan tambang batu bara nasional. Seperti dikutip dari marketwire.com, PHI Group merupakan perusahaan energi dan pertambangan yang berbasis di California, Amerika Serikat (AS). Perusahaan telah menandatangani perjanjian definitif untuk pembelian 70 persen kepemilikan di PT Tambang Sekarsa Adadaya. Tambang Se-karsa Adadaya memiliki konsensi batu bara seluas 9.690 hektare, dengan cadangan 71,04 juta ton dan sumber daya 205,33 juta ton di Sulawesi Barat. Nilai pembelian secara tunai sebesar 5,25 juta dollar AS ke PT Tambang Sekarsa Adadaya dan sekitar 5,25 juta dollar AS dalam bentuk saham PHI Group.

Perusahaan asing lainnya, Coke Resour-ces dikabarkan mengakuisisi 97,03% saham tidak langsung di PT CEP, pemilik proyek

tambang batu bara Cristian di Kalimantan Timur seluas 5.273 hektare. Selain itu, peru-sahaan asal Australia ini juga mengakuisisi 75% saham di PT Indotan Sumbawa Barat yang memegang izin eksplorasi di tambang emas Taliwang di Sumbawa. Untuk mendu-kung aksi korporasi tersebut, Coke Resources menyiapkan dana sebesar 4,2 juta dollar Australia.

Sesungguhnya, tren akuisisi atau pem-belian saham perusahaan tambang batu bara sudah marak sejak tahun lalu. Pada November 2012 lalu, misalnya, Tata Power, perusahaan listrik asal India, mengakuisisi 26 persen saham perusahaaan batu bara PT Baramulti Suksessarana Tbk (BSSR) yang belum lama mencatatkan saham di Bursa Efek Indonesia.

Akuisisi tersebut dilakukan melalui Khopoli Investments Ltd, anak perusahaan yang sepenuhnya dimiliki oleh Tata Power. Aksi korporasi ini dilakukan guna menjamin pasokan bahan bakar untuk mendukung per-tumbuhan bisnis Tata Power di masa-masa yang akan datang.

Baramulti dan anak usahanya, yaitu PT Antang Gunung Meratus, memiliki dua tam-bang batu bara dengan sumber daya batu bara 1 miliar ton batu bara di Kalimantan Selatan dan Kalimatan Timur. Selain di Baramulti, sebelumnya Tata Power juga telah menguasai

30 persen saham di dua anak usaha PT Bumi Resources Tbk (BUMI), yaitu PT Kaltim Prima Coal dan PT Arutmin Indonesia.

Pada medio 2012, PT Resources Alam Indonesia Tbk menuntaskan akuisisi lima tambang batu bara dengan total nilai sebe-sar 11,8 juta dollar AS atau setara Rp 111,9 miliar. Akuisisi terakhir dilakukan perseroan terhadap 60 persen saham PT Loa Hasur dengan nilai 3,9 juta dollar AS atau Rp 36,98 miliar. Sebelumnya, empat perusahaan yang telah diakuisisi Resources Alam Indonesia adalah PT Kaltim Mineral, PT Jaya Mineral, PT Tambang Mulia, dan PT Chaido Mega Mineral di Kalimantan Timur dengan total nilai akuisisi sebesar 7,92 juta dollar AS atau setara Rp 75,03 miliar.

Disebutkan, Loa Haur merupakan peru-sahaan tambang green field (belum digarap) yang berlokasi di Murung Raya, Kalimantan Tengah. Perusahaan ini memiliki izin usaha pertambangan (IUP) sejak 2009 dengan area konsesi seluas 5.000 hektare. Sedangkan, Kaltim Mineral, Jaya Mineral, dan Tambang Mulia memiliki IUP sejak 2010 dengan area konsesi di Kutai Timur seluas 23.521 hektare. Adapun, Chaido Mega memiliki IUP sejak 2008 dengan area konsesi di Kutai Kar-tanegara seluas 5.000 hektare. Ditargetkan, Chaido Mega mulai berproduksi pada tahun ini dan Kaltim Mineral, Jaya Mieneral, dan

Page 18: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

�� Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

L a p o R a n U t a m a

Harga Saham Beberapa Perusahaan Batu Bara (Rp)

Stock Code Stock Name 26 Nov 2010 31 Okt 2011 GrowthADRO Adaro Energy Tbk. 2,325 2,025 -12.90% BORN Borneo Lumbung Energi & Metal Tbk. 1,280 1,030 -19.53% BRAU Berau Coal Energy Tbk. 520 455 -12.50% BUMI Bumi Resources Tbk 3,025 2,350 -22.31% DOID Delta Dunia Makmur Tbk 1,280 630 -50.78% HRUM Harum Energy Tbk. 6,750 7,850 16.30% ITMG Indo Tambangraya Megah Tbk 50,750 44,650 -12.02% PTBA Tambang Batubara Bukit AsamTbk 19,950 18,350 -8.02%

Kapitalisasi Pasar Beberapa perusahaan Batu Bara (Rp Juta)

Stock Code Stock Name 26 Nov 2010 31 Okt 2011 GrowthADRO Adaro Energy Tbk. 124,451 61,437 -50.63% BORN Borneo Lumbung Energi & Metal Tbk. 1,778,135 63,085 -96.45% BRAU Berau Coal Energy Tbk. 31,287 698 -97.77% BUMI Bumi Resources Tbk 323,826 135,908 -58.03% DOID Delta Dunia Makmur Tbk 145,448 6,376 -95.62% HRUM Harum Energy Tbk. 29,278 54,298 85.46% ITMG Indo Tambangraya Megah Tbk 41,666 29,000 -30.40% PTBA Tambang Batubara Bukit AsamTbk 37,037 17,221 -53.50%

Tambang Mulia direncanakan mulai ber-produksi pada 2015.

Pada Oktober 2012, PT Delta Dunia Makmur Tbk (DOID) mengakuisisi atas 99,9 persen saham di dua perusahaan batu bara, PT Banyu Biru Sakti dan PT Pulau Mutiara Persada. Banyu Biru telah memperoleh izin usaha pertambangan eksplorasi dengan lokasi tambang di Kalimantan Timur seluas 7.742 hektare. Sedangkan, seperti dikutip okezone.com, Pulau Mutiara memiliki izin usaha pertambangan eksplorasi dengan lo-kasi tambang di Jambi seluas sekitar 3.500 hektare. Total nilai transaksi pengambialihan saham pada dua perusahaan itu mencapai Rp 162 miliar.

Di waktu yang hampir bersamaan, PT Harum Energy Tbk mengakuisisi 50,5 persen saham PT Karya Usaha Pertiwi senilai 2 juta dollar AS. Karya Usaha Pertiwi memiliki lokasi tambang batu bara di Kalimantan Timur. Perusahaan ini menargetkan produksi keseluruhan sepanjang tahun antara 12,5 juta ton dan 13 juta ton. Adapun penjualan tahun ini diperkirakan mencapai 13 juta ton hingga 14 juta ton. Saat aksi korporasi ini dilakukan, dalam perdagangan di Bursa Efek

Indonesia, harga saham Harum Energy yang berkode HRUM stagnan di level Rp5.900 dan membentuk kapitalisasi pasar senilai Rp15,95 triliun.

Menjelang akhir tahun 2012 lalu, Western

Manganese Ltd, perusahaan tambang yang terdaftar di bursa Australia, memfinalisasi proses akuisisi 100 persen kepemilikan empat konsesi tambang batu bara di Kalimantan Timur. Keempat perusahaan yang sahamnya

Page 19: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

��Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

L a p o R a n U t a m a

Aset Beberapa Perusahaan Batu Bara (Rp Juta)

Stock Code Stock Name September 2011 Desember 2010ITMG* PT Indo Tambangraya Megah 11,427,490.47 9,663,294.87 BUMI* PT Bumi Resources 67,520,847.79 77,798,637.22 ADRO PT Adaro energy 48,382,805.48 40,600,921.00 PTBA PT Tambang Batubara Bukit Asam 10,583,430.00 8,722,699.00 BORN Borneo Lumbung Energy & Metal Tbk 10,414,274.00 8,523,960.00 HRUM Harum Energy Tbk 4,173,171.00 3,470,174.00 DOID Delta Dunia Makmur Tbk 10,201,369.49 7,637,438.27 BRAU* Berau Coal Energy Tbk. 10,201,369.49 16,645,499.00

Penjualan Beberapa Perusahaan Batu Bara (Rp Juta)

Stock Code Stock Name September 2011 Desember 2010ITMG* PT Indo Tambangraya Megah 8,604,532.75 14,793,193.02 BUMI* PT Bumi Resources 15,895,072.03 38,751,584.25 ADRO PT Adaro energy 25,937,383.88 24,689,333.00 PTBA PT Tambang Batubara Bukit Asam 7,754,734.00 7,909,154.00 BORN Borneo Lumbung Energy & Metal Tbk 4,440,081.00 2,751,793.00 HRUM Harum Energy Tbk 5,100,846.00 4,486,422.00

diakuisi adalah PT Pratama Energy Alam Tujuh (PEAT), PT Adi Mecha Kontekindo (AMK), PT Samboja Perdana Agung (SPA), dan PT LB Prima Coal (LBPC). Masing-ma-sing memiliki konsesi pertambangan batu bara seluas 5 ribu hektare di Kabupaten Penajam Paser Utara, Kalimantan Timur.

Aksi ini dilakukan dengan menerbitkan maksimal 10 juta saham. Selain itu, nilai akuisisi juga tergantung cadangan yang akan didapatkan perusahaan selama eksplorasi. Rencananya, pascaaksi korporasi, peru-sahaan akan segera melakukan eksplorasi terbatas untuk mengidentifikasi cadangan

yang ada. Direktur Eksekutif Asosiasi Pertamba-

ngan Batu Bara Indonesia (APBI) Supriatna Suhala mengakui bahwa dalam dua tahun terakhir terjadi tren akuisisi atau pembelian terhadap perusahaan-perusahaan tambang batu bara, terutama oleh perusahaan-peru-sahaan asing. Tren ini terjadi, menurutnya, karena masih rendahnya biaya produksi batu bara di Indonesia. “Biaya produksi batu bara di Indonesia sangat kompetitif,” ujar Supriatna Suhala.

Dijelaskan, saat ini harga batu bara In-donesia memang sangat kompetitif karena biaya produksi terbilang lebih rendah diban-dingkan dengan negara-negara lain. Hal ini, imbuhnya, membuat investor asing tertarik masuk ke Indonesia.

Supriatna Suhala menjelaskan, dengan kondisi pasar saat ini, perusahaan besar akan berupaya mencari konsesi batu bara yang tidak berjalan karena kurang efisien. Sebab, untuk membuat sebuah perusahaan efisien dibutuhkan modal yang cukup besar. Selama ini, imbuhnya, perusahaan yang beroperasi saat harga batu bara tinggi kurang memikir-kan masalah efisiensi. “Ini juga peluang bagi perusahaan besar untuk mencari konsesi batu bara yang murah,” dia menjelaskan. q

Page 20: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

20 Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

L a p o R a n U t a m a

Tambang Kolonial Versus Tambang Rakyat

Penambangan batu bara di wilayah Indonesia sudah berbilang abad. Awal dimonopoli perusahaan kolonial, kini rakyat perorangan pun boleh menambang batu bara.

Sejarah itu dimulai dari Pengaron, sebuah kawasan yang terletak di Kalimantan Timur. Di sanalah, untuk kali pertama, pada 1849 batu

bara ditambang. Yang melakukan penamba-ngan adalah sebuah perusahaan swasta asal Belanda. Saat itu, baru digunakan teknik penambangan secara terbuka. Sekitar empat dekade kemudian, penambangan kedua di-lakukan di Ombilin, Sumatera Barat, pada 1892. Kali ini, yang melakukan penamba-ngan sebuah perusahaan milik Pemerintah Hinda Belanda. Saat itu, untuk kali pertama digunakan teknik penambangan tertutup alias penambangan bawah tanah.

Penambangan di Ombilin inilah yang menjadi cikal bakal industri penambangan batu bara modern di Indonesia. Saat itu, se-lain mulai melakukan penambangan bawah tanah, juga mulai disiapkan infrastrukturnya yang memang memakan waktu sangat lama. Salah satunya dibangun jalur kereta api dari Padang hingga Sawahlunto. Maka, pada 1970-an, Sawahlunto menjadi kota yang sa-ngat maju dengan industri batu bara sebagai andalannya. Cadangan batu bara di daerah lain juga mulai terus dieksplorasi, seperti di Tanjung Enim (Sumatera Selatan), Tepi Sungai Mahakam (Kalimantan Timur), dan Pulau Laut (Kalimantan Selatan).

Jika dirunut ke belakang, perkembangan industri batu bara di Indonesia telah melewati setidaknya lima fase. Fase pertama sebelum 1941. Saat itu semua ladang tambang batu bara dieksplorasi oleh perusahaan-perusa-haan Belanda, yang tambang terbuka maupun bawah tanah, seperti di Ombilin, Tanjung Enim, dan Tepi Sungai Mahakam. Saat itu, pengguna batu bara adalah kereta api, pabrik semen, industri manufaktur dan industri kecil terutama di sekitar tambang batubara. Pabrik Semen Padang didirikan pada 1910, dan setelah menggunakan batu bara dari Ombilin produksi meningkat hingga mencapai sekitar 2 juta ton per tahun.

Fase kedua adalah periode 1942-1974. Pada awal 1940-an, industri batu bara sempat diambil alih dan dimanfaatkan oleh Jepang untuk mendukung perang. Namun, pasca-kemerdekaan, pada 1950-an, pemerintah melakukan nasionalisasi terhadap perusa-haan-perusahaan tambang asing. Namun, sejak itu, produksi batu bara menurun dan puncaknya pada akhir 1960-an produk batu bara jatuh ke titik terendah hanya 200 ribu ton per tahun. Selanjutnya memasuki 1970-an batu bara justru mulai ditinggalkan fungsinya digantikan oleh minyak. Namun, di akhir 1970-an, ketika terjadi krisis minyak, batu bara kembali ditoleh.

Fase ketiga periode 1974-1991. Periode ini memasuki babak baru dengan diguna-kannya sistem kontrak karya untuk tambang batu bara. Pada 1974, misalnya, untuk kali pertama dibuat kontrak karya (KK) antara pemerintah dengan Shell Mijnbouw dengan lokasi tambang Tanjung Enim. Namun, KK ini berakhir pada 1978 tanpa kelanjutan. Selanjutnya, mulai awal 1980-an dikembang-kan proyek terpadu penambangan batu bara di Bukit Asam dengan menggunakan jalur kereta api dari Tanjung Enim ke Tarahan (Lampung) dan PLTU Suralaya. Perusahaan yang melakukan eksplorasi adalah PT Tam-bang Batubara Bukit Asam (PTBA) dan PN Tambang Batu Bara. terpisah dari PN Tam-

Page 21: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

2�Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

L a p o R a n U t a m a

Tentang Izin Usaha Batu Bara

Sebelum ada Undang-Undang (UU) Nomor � Tahun 200� tentang Per-tambangan Mineral dan Batu Bara,

kegiatan pertambangan batu bara diatur melalui UU Nomor �� Tahun ���� tentang Ketentuan-ketentuan Pokok Pertambangan. Berdasarkan UU ini, pelaksanaan kegiatan usaha pertambangan batu bara diatur dengan Perjanjian Karya Pengusahaan Pertambangan Batu Bara (PKP2B). Perjanjian dibuat antara pemerintah dengan pihak pengusaha dengan kedudukan yang setara.

Sejak diberlakukannya UU Nomor � Tahun 200� tentang Pertambangan Mineral dan Batu Bara, pelaksanaan kegiatan usaha pertamba-nhan batu bara diatur melalui perizinan yang dikenal dengan nama Izin Usaha Pertamba-ngan (IUP). Dengan demikian, IUP merupakan izin untuk melaksanakan usaha pertambangan, baik pertambangan mineral maupun batu bara. IUP diberikan kepada badan usaha, koperasi, dan perseorangan

Secara umum, ada tiga jenis izin per-tambangan batu bara, yaitu IUP, Izin Pertam-bangan Rakyat (IPR), dan Izin Pertambangan Khusus (IUPK). IUP terdiri dari dua kategori, yaitu IUP Eksplorasi dan IUP Operasi Produksi.

IUP Eksplorasi merupakan izin usaha yang diberikan untuk melakukan tahapan kegiatan penyelidikan umum, eksplorasi, dan studi kelayakan di bidang pertambangan batu bara. Sedangkan, IUP Operasi Produksi merupakan izin usaha yang dlberikan setelah selesai pelaksanaan IUP Eksplorasi untuk melakukan tahapan kegiatan operasi produksi.

Sementara itu, IUPK merupakan izin untuk melaksanakan usaha pertambangan di wilayah izin usaha pertambangan khusus. Seperti halnya IUP, IUPK juga terdiri dari dua kategori, yaitu IUPK Eksplorasi dan IUPK Operasi Produksi. Teakhir, Izin Pertambangan Rakyat atau IPR merupakan izin untuk melak-sanakan usaha pertambangan dalam wilayah pertambangan rakyat dengan luas wilayah dan investasi terbatas.

Selanjutnya, dalam UU tersebut juga diatur tentang kewajiban-kewajiban pemegang IUP atau IUPK. Misalnya, pemegang IUP atau IUPK wajib membayar pendapatan negara dan pendapatan daerah. Pendapatan negara terdiri atas penerimaan pajak dan penerimaan negara bukan pajak. Yang tergolong penerimaan pajak dalam hal ini adalah pajak-pajak yang menjadi kewenangan pemerintah sesuai dengan

ketentuan peraturan perundang-undangan di bidang perpajakan dan bea masuk serta cukai. Sedangkan, yang tergolong penerimaan negara bukan pajak sebagaimana terdiri atas iuran tetap, iuran eksplorasi, iuran produksi, dan kompensasi data informasi. Sementara itu, yang dimaksud dengan pendapatan daerah dalam ketentuan UU ini adalah pajak daerah, retribusi daerah, pendapatan lain yang sah berdasarkan ketentuan peraturan perundang-undangan.

Dalam melaksanakan kegiatan usaha pertambangan batu bara, pemegang IUP atau IUPK diwajibkan menggunakan perusahaan jasa pertarnbangan lokal dan/atau nasional. Jika tidak terdapat perusahaan jasa pertambangan lokal dan/atau nasional, pemegang IUP atau IUPK dapat menggunakan perusahaan jasa pertambangan lain yang berbadan hukum Indo-nesia. Adapun jenis usaha jasa pertambangan yang dimaksud meliputi jasa konsultasi, peren-canaan, pelaksanaan, dan pengujian peralatan di bidang penyelidikan umum, eksplorasi, studi kelayakan, konstruksi pertambangan, pengang-kutan, lingkungan pertambangan, pascatam-bang dan reklamasi, dan/atau keselamatan dan kesehatan kerja. q

bang Batubara. Berikutnya dilakukan Kon-trak Kerja Sama (KKS) dengan perusahaan asing untuk pengembangan pertambangan berbagai tempat, baik di Pulau Kalimantan maupun Pulau Sumatera. Pada 1990-an, KKS tersebut mulai memasuki tahap operasi produksi

Fase keempat adalah periode 1990-an. Pada fase ini mulai terjadi peningkatan produksi batu bara secara signifikan yang merupakan hasil dari KKS tersebut. Namun, pada 1995 Perusahaan Tambang Bukit Asam bukan lagi bertindak sebagai prinsipal KKS sebab kewenangannya telah diambil alih oleh pemerintah. Sejak saat itu, pelaksanaan kegiatan pertambangan batu bara didasarkan pada Perjanjian Karya Pengusahaan Pertam-bangan Batu Bara (PKP2B) yang dibuat an-tara pemerintah dengan perusahaan swasta, baik nasional maupun asing. Saat itu batu bara digunakan untuk memenuhi kebutuhan domestik untuk mendukung beroperasinya

perusahaan listrik tenaga uap (PLTU).Fase kelima adalah periode 2009 hingga

sekarang. Sejak 2009, industri batu bara me-

masuki babak baru lagi setelah pemerintah menerbitkan Undang-Undang (UU) Nomor 4 Tahun 2009 tentang Pertambangan Mineral dan Batu Bara yang menggantikan UU No-mor 11 Tahun 1967 tentang Ketentuan-keten-tuan Pokok Pertambangan. Dengan diterbit-kannya UU baru ini, kegiatan penambangan batu bara dilakukan melalui rezim perizinan dan system PKP2B pun dihapus. Kini, selain izin pertambangan umum, yaitu Izin Usaha Penambangan (IUP), juga dimungkinkan adanya Izin Usaha Penambanhan Rakyat (IUPR) dan Isin Usaha Penambangan Khu-sus (IUPK). Dengan demikian, dimulai era persaingan terbuka antara perusahaan-peru-sahaan tambang raksasa baik asing maupun nasional dengan usaha pertambangan rakyat dan koperasi. Dengan UU baru ini, peme-rintah pusat dan daerah telah menerbitkan ribuan IUP, yang diiringi dengan fenoma berjibunnya usaha tambang yang tutup dan yang baru mulai beroperasi. q

Page 22: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

22 Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

W a W a n C a R a

Direktur Pembinaan Pengusahaan Batu Bara ESDM R Edi Prasodjo

“Bisnis Tambang Memang Penuh Risiko”

Industri tambang batu bara memasuki babak yang terbilang rumit. Selain dirundung masalah fluktuasi harga, industri batu bara dalam negeri dihadapkan pada masalah pengawasan dan pengendalian. Tanpa adanya pengawasan dan pengendalian yang tepat dan efektif, cadangan batu bara nasional akan segerap habis tanpa memberikan banyak manfaat bagi kepentingan nasional.

Untuk mengetahui langkah-langkah apa yang dilakukan pemerintah selaku regulator untuk menata pertambangan

batu bara, Majalah Media Penilai melakukan wawancara khusus dengan Direktur Pembi-naan Pengusahaan Batu Bara pada Direktorat Jenderal Mineral dan Batu Bara Kementerian Energi dan Sumber Daya Mineral (ESDM) R Edi Prasodjo.

Diwawancarai di kantornya pada awal Juni 2013, Edi Prasodjo yang sebelumnya menjabat sebagai Sekretaris Direktorat

Jenderal Mineral dan Batu Bara Kemen-terian ESDM ini meminta Media Penilai menjelaskan hal-hal yang berkaitan dengan profesi penilai dan posisi majalah yang diter-bitkan Masyarakat Profesi Penilai Indonesia (MAPPI). “Kita belum saling kenal, jadi Anda mesti memperkenalkan diri dulu,” ujarnya.

Setelah “sesi” perkenalan, Edi Prasdojo memberi penjelasan panjang lebar soal kon-disi pertambangan batu bara di Indonesia dan langkah-langkah yang diambil pemerintah untuk melakukan penataan usaha penamba-

ngan batu bara. Berikut petikannya:

Anda bisa menjelaskan secara umum seperti apa kebijakan pertambangan di Indonesia, termasuk pertambangan batu bara?

Kemarin saya juga ikut acara yang Ap-praisal Institute dunia. Di situ ada penilaian terhadap pertambangan di Indonesia. Di situ disampaikan bahwa, berdasarkan wawancara yang dilakukan di 96 negara, untuk tahun 2012-2013 kebijakan Indonesia dinilai sebagai yang terburuk. Tapi saya bertanya, apakah respondennya sudah mewakili? Saya tanya, siapa, sih, respondennya yang di Indo-nesia? Apakah hanya perusahaan-perusahaan besar seperti Freeport, Newmont, KPC, atau Kontrak Karya, atau PKP Dobe?

Apakah penilaian itu dilakukan lem-baga penilai?

Dia itu semacam lembaga survei dunia yang melakukan penilaian terhadap iklim investasi kepada negara-negara di dunia, di antaranya Indonesia. Dan dia menilai bahwa dari sisi cadangan dan sumber daya, Indone-sia itu termasuk kategori yang bagus, atraktif. Tapi, kalau dilihat dari sisi kebijakannya, dinilai belum menarik, bahkan sangat jelek. Tapi, waktu itu saya jelaskan begini, bahwa Indonesia itu memang sangat berbeda karak-teristiknya dibandingkan dengan negara lain. Kebijakan pertambangan mineral dan batu bara di Indonesia tidak bisa berdiri sendiri. Dia ada di tengah-tengah kebijakan yang lain, seperti kehutanan, lingkungkan hidup, keuangan, tenaga kerja, perindustrian, perda-gangan, bahkan kebijakan otonomi daerah dan lain-lain. Semua itu sangat terkait. Jadi, kalau dia menilai kebijakan pertambangan sangat buruk, sebenarnya itu keterkaitannya dengan yang lain sehingga tidak bisa dinilai begitu saja. Contohnya seperti pertambangan di hutan produksi, dia harus mendapatkan izin pinjam pakai. Nah, untuk mendapat-

Page 23: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

23Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

W a W a n C a R a

kan izin pinjam pakai itu menjadi salah satu proses yang sangat lama, dan sangat memakan waktu. Itu salah satu hal yang menjadi kendala.

Berarti dari sisi regulasi memang be-lum mendukung iklim investasi?

Dari sisi pemerintah, regulasi itu di-perlukan untuk penjaminan, pengawasan, pengendalian. Ini yang kita lakukan. Regu-lasi dituangkan mulai dari undang-undang (UU) hingga peraturan segala macam. Itu dibuat agar menjadi salah satu yang akan memberikan kontribusi terhadap investasi. Hanya, nantinya regulasi ini juga akan terkait dengan yang lain, misalnya soal nilai tambah. Sekarang investasi kita dorong agar memiliki nilai tambah.

Apa dasarnya?Ada beberapa alasan. Pertama, dari sisi

sumber daya dan cadangan, walaupun relatif besar, tapi itu kan terbatas. Kedua, cadangan batu bara kita itu kalau dibandingkan dengan cadangan dunia hanya 3 persennya. Ada sumber daya ada cadangan. Sumber daya kita sebesar 161 miliar ton. Jumlah cadangan 28 miliar ton. Jumlah cadangan kita itulah yang 3 persen dari cadangan dunia. Jadi, jum-lahnya sudah sangat terbatas. Karena itulah pemerintah ingin cadangan itu dimanfaatkan sebesar-besarnya untuk kemakmuran rakyat. Karena itulah ada beberapa pesan penting di dalam UU Minerba. Pertama, memberikan prioritas untuk kebutuhan dalam negeri. Jadi seluruh yang ada itu untuk dalam negeri dulu. Yang kedua, mendorong dilakukannya peningkatan nilai tambah.

Itu termasuk tambang batu bara?Iya, termasuk batu bara. Hanya, ada

perbedaan antara mineral dengan batu bara. Kalau yang di mineral memang kita dorong supaya ada nilai tambah, sedangkan di batu bara kita support. Keduanya memang me-miliki karakteristik yang agak berbeda. Se-bagai gambaran, di mineral itu, kan, berupa bijih besi, nikel. Untuk tiap satu ton tanah, misalnya, kadarnya 7 persen atau bahkan hanya 2 persen. Artinya, dari satu ton tanah itu, nikelnya kurang lebih hanya 20 kg. Jadi, kalau kita mau jual satu ton nikel, itu kita seperti jual tanah yang sisanya 580 kg yang bisa jadi masih mengandung bahan-bahan lain yang berharga, tidak hanya nikel. Bisa

jadi ada cobbalt, besi, atau bisa juga ada kandungan-kandungan yang sangat jarang yang sekarang itu dicari orang. Karena itulah, untuk mineral harus dilakukan pengolahan. Sebab, kalau tidak, kita seperti kita menjual tanah air saja kalau dijual bijih besi seluruh-nya mentah begitu saja. Kalau tidak, nanti di sana (tujuan ekspor) diambil juga dan mereka dapat keuntungan dari mineral ikutannya. Keuntungannya bisa dicari, padahal dari sini cuma tanah satu ton. Makanya nikel yang masih berupa bijih nikel itu murah karena masih berupa tanah, katakanlah 20 dolar AS per ton. Itu sangat murah. Sedangkan, kalau diolah harganya bisa lebih tinggi sampai 20-30 kalinya.

Bagaimana dengan karakteristik batu bara?

Kalau batu bara, begitu kita ambil langsung bisa kita gunakan untuk bahan pembakaran atau bisa diproses menjadi cair atau ditingkatkan kalorinya.

Menurut para pelaku usaha, road map industry tambang batu bara dan ener-gy nasional tidak begitu jelas, termasuk strategi yang ditempuh pemerintah. Apa tanggapan Anda?

Ada beberapa hal yang sangat penting yang perlu saya jelaskan. Pertama, kalau dari sisi kebijakan di bawah, ada enam kebijakan. Tapi yang penting itu yang di atasnya, kebi-

jakan makronya. Di level mikro ada enam kebijakan di minerba. Pertama sebagai priori-tas kebutuhan domestik. Kedua, menciptakan kepastian hukum. Ketiga, pengawasan dan pembinaan. Keempat, peningkatan peneri-maan Negara. Kelima, peningkatan investasi. Dan, keenam, pemeliharaan lingkungan. Tapi yang lebih penting lagi sesungguhnya berkaitan dengan masalah mau dibawa ke arah mana sih batu bara itu ke depan. Itu, kan, sebenarnya arah pertanyaan Anda.

Ada gambaran mau dibawa ke mana batu bara kita ke depan?

Tergantung cara pandang kita, apakah batu bara akan kita perlakukan sebagai ko-moditas atau juga sebagai energi.

Pemerintah sendiri memperlakukan-nya sebagai apa?

Sekarang ini masih berlaku dua-dua-nya.

Apa penjelasannya?Kenapa diperlakukan sebagai komo-

ditas? Karena, negara ini masih butuh penerimaan negara. Dan, sekarang kalau Anda lihat dari penerimaan negara, andalan-nya memang dari minyak dan gas (migas). Migas ya sama mineral itu sekitar 35 persen dari total penerimaan. Setelah sekarang era migas mulai menurun, kan harus ada yang bisa menutup. Nah yang menutup ya sektor

Page 24: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

2� Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

W a W a n C a R a

energi yang sama-sama dari fosil, dan itu ya batu bara. Batu bara yang bisa menutup. Itulah alasan kenapa batu bara diperlakukan sebagai komoditas. Tujuannya memang un-tuk menutup penerimaan negara. Kebijakan seperti itu memang masih dibutuhkan, dan diupayakan untuk meningkatkan penerimaan negara sebesar mungkin. Dari situ dampak-nya adalah terjadi ekspor batu bara yang besar, produksinya juga besar.

Bagaimana dengan sudut pandang lainnya, di mana batu bara diperlakukan sebagai (sumber) energi?

Sebagai energi, sebenarnya peran batu bara sebagai pembangkit listrik, untuk bahan bakar industri, dan lain-lain guna mendorong perekonomian nasional. Sebagai energi, se-harusnya penambangan batu bara dibarengi konservasi agar bisa dimanfaatkan selama mungkin. Hanya, karena ada unsur sebagai komoditas, maka batu bara itu diekspor juga. Kalau sebagai energi seharusnya hanya untuk kebutuhan domestik. Digunakan langsung untuk pembangkit listrik dan keperluan in-

dustri. Kalau hanya untuk energi benar-benar tidak diekspor. Sekarang kita lihat, ekspor batu bara kita sangat besar. Saat ini kurang lebih 80 persen dari total produksi batu bara diekspor. Yang domestik hanya 20 persen kurang. Makanya, yang saya bilang tadi, sebetulnya kebutuhan domestik memang masih kecil. Kalau memang kebutuhan do-mestik besar, tidak kita ekspor. Masalahnya kebutuhannya memang segitu.

Artinya, pemerintah sendiri belum menstimulus tambang batu bara untuk energi di dalam negeri?

Seluruh kebutuhan batu bara dalam negeri sudah dipenuhi memalui kebijakan Domestic Market Obligation (DMO). Ting-gal sekarang industrinya. Kalau kita, kan, suplier dan yang menggunakan industri. Makanya saya bilang kebijakan kita itu tidak bisa berdiri sendiri. Harus komprehensif. Harus ada perdagangan di situ, harus ada perekonomian di situ. Bagi kami, siapa pun dan kebutuhan batu bara berapapun untuk do-mestik, langsung kami paksa pemenuhannya

melalui DMO. Jadi begitu mereka muncul kebutuhannya berapa langsung kita kasih. Hanya, karena kebutuhan domestiknya ke-cil, ya terpaksa kita ekspor juga. Ekspornya besar karena memang target penerimaan negara tadi. Ini memang bisa jadi salah satu persoalan, tapi di sisi lain juga ada target penerimaan negara.

Pengendalian ekspor batu bara untuk penerimaan negara apakah bisa berjalan efektif? Dan seperti apa pembagiannya?

Ada yang disebut royalti. Royalti itu adalah untuk pemindahan hak penggunaan, hak pakai istilahnya. Filosofinya, seluruh barang-barang yang berada di permukaan bumi itu adalah milik negara. Untuk bisa menggunakan, si pemilik tambang harus membayar royalti. Karena itu royalti dibayar di depan sebelum pajak. Besarnya royalti 13,5 persen, melainkan 3 persen untuk batu bara kualitas rendah, 5 persen untuk kualitas menengah, dan 7 persen untuk kualitas tinggi. Itu yang untuk tambang permukaan. Untuk tambang bawah tanah itu, royaltinya 2 persen

Page 25: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

2�Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

W a W a n C a R a

untuk kualitas rendah, 4 persen untuk kualitas menengah, dan 6 persen untuk kualitas tinggi. Nah, yang 13,5 persen tadi lain konteksnya.

Maksudnya seperti apa?Yang dikenakan 13,5 persen itu Per-

janjian Kontrak Penambangan Batu Bara (PKP2B). Itu diberlakukan karena PKP2B terikat perjanjian dengan pemerintah (sebe-lum UU Minerba), di dalamnya termasuk yang 3-5-7 persen itu. Sisanya untuk dana pengembangan pembangunan pertambangan dan lain-lain. Jadi, besarnya penerimaan negara dari tambang itu adalah dari yang 13,5 persen ini. Kalau yang IUP ini, kan, diterbitkan oleh daerah. Izin-izin sama dae-rah, royaltinya 3-5-7 persen tersebut. Yang PKP2B itu atas dasar perjanjian mereka dengan pemerintah pusat.

Sesungguhnya ada berapa macam penerimaan negara dari pertambangan ini? Yang termasuk penerimaan negara bukan pajak berapa, yang termasuk pajak berapa?

Royalti 13,5 persen itu termasuk peneri-maan bukan pajak. Selain itu masih ada yang namanya pajak badan. Pajak badan untuk PKP2B generasi pertama sebesar 45 persen, jauh lebih besar dibandingkan dengan pajak badan yang diatur UU Pajak yang hanya 25 persen. Setelah itu, masih ada PPn, PPn Barang, dan PPh perorangan. Itu belum termasuk pajak-pajak daerah. Jadi, memang

banyak sekali.

Berarti penerimaan untuk negara besar sekali?

Dari PKP2B, dilihat dari strukturnya, kurang lebih 65-70 persen untuk negara, yang 35 persen untuk mereka. Jadi, kalau kita lihat penerimaan negara yang dari royalti saja memang kecil. Tapi, penerimaan pajak dan nonpajak dari pertambangan kurang lebih telah mencapai Rp 110 triliun. Suatu jumlah yang sangat signifikan. Coba bandingkan dengan penerimaan negara dari kehutanan, paling Rp 5 triliunan. Di pertambangan, sumbangan dari Freeport saja bisa lebih dari Rp 5 triliun.

Itu penerimaan dari migas atau batu bara saja?

Dari mineral dan batu bara. Coba ban-dingkan dengan perkebunan berapa. Sebagai contoh, untuk perkebunan kelapa sawit yang memakan lahan 8 juta hektare saja penerimaannya tidak sampai Rp 5 triliun. Padahal, untuk pertambangan, luas lahan yang diproduksi itu kurang lebih hanya 355 ribu hektare. Contoh-contoh itu menun-jukkan bahwa peran pertambangan untuk penerimaan negara sangat besar, sangat signifikan. Namun, untuk pengembangannya tetap menemui banyak kendala.

Apa saja kendala yang dihadapi?Misalnya, pada saat mengurus penam-

bangan di hutan, nanti ada tumpang tindih dengan masalah perizinan di perkebunan. Itu salah satu yang menjadi kendala di dalam pertambangan.

Bagaimana Direktorat Jenderal Mi-nerba mengatasi masalah-masalah seperti ini?

Case by case. Kasus-kasus yang seka-rang kami tangani banyak. Misalnya, PKP2B atau kontrak karya itu perizinannya menjadi tumpang tindih dengan izin-izin di daerah. Untuk itu kami melakukan koordinasi dengan pemerintah daerah yang berwenang menerbitkan izin. Banyak kasus seperti itu. Itu karena, dalam era otonomi daerah seka-rang ini, bupati berwenang mengeluarkan izin pada wilayah masing-masing, termasuk pada wilayah yang sudah ada izinnya.

Jadi perizinannya double-double dan tumpang tindih ya?

Iya. Wilayah PKP2B atau kontrak karya banyak juga yang tumpang tindih dengan izin-izin baru. Nah, ini yang menjadi sumber konflik sesama pengusaha tambang. Kalau beda tambang, misalkan yang satu hutan yang satunya lagi perkebunan memang harus difasilitasi dan harus dipertemukan. Itu benar-benar harus dilihat, jangan sampai menjadi modus, wah ini ada orang nambang, nih, lalu sengaja ditanam di situ supaya dapat ganti rugi. Kan, ada juga yang begitu. Tapi yang penting adalah koordinasi lintas sektor, karena nanti bisa dilihat izin-izinnya bagaimana. Terus pemerintah daerahnya bagaimana. Nah, itu koordinasi pemerin-tahlah.

Efektifkah koordinasi di tingkat bawah?

Ya, namanya apa koordinasi, gampang-gampang susah karena masing-masing punya kepentingan berbeda. Sebetulnya, saya sih kadang-kadang berpikiran begini, pengusaha harusnya sudah dijamin kepastian hukumnya. Mereka mau bekerja apa, sih, tambang? Ya sudah tambang, jangan yang lain dulu. Faktanya tidak begitu. Mereka mau menambang di situ tapi ada hutan produksi, jadi harus izin dulu. Sudah begitu, ada kelapa sawit muncul di sana. Mereka bertempur lagi dengan perizinan kelapa sawit. Terus ada macam-macam lagi, kadang-kadang malah dengan sesama penambang. Kadang-kadang

Page 26: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

2� Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

W a W a n C a R a

dengan migas, sebab ada daerah migas di sana. Konfliknya udah macam-macam. Terhadap kasus-kasus seperti itu kami terus mencoba memfasilitasi.

Apa saja yang dilakukan pemerintah untuk melakukan pembenahan?

Kami sekarang memang lagi membenahi pertambangan di daerah. Sekarang ini izin pertambangan sudah mencapai 10 ribu lebih. Izin-izin itu yang diterbitkan pemda sejak 2000-2009. Persisnya ada 10.667 izin. Dari jumlah itu, sekitar 4 ribuan merupakan izin tambang batu bara. Ini baru izin di daerah. Makanya banyak yang disebut “IUP Pilkada” waktu itu. Karena, menjelang Pilkada banyak izin-izin baru muncul. Kebanyakan izin-izin tumpang tindih. Sudah ada izinnya ditumpa-ngi lagi, ditindihi lagi, sampai kadang-kadang ada lima izin untuk satu lokasi.

Kasus-kasus seperti ini bukannya membingungkan dan memberatkan pengusaha?

Iya, memberatkan pengusaha. Kasihan mereka. Akhirnya di antara mereka sering terjadi sengketa hukum atau menggugat ke-pala daerah. Bupati yang lama sudah lengser, bupati yang baru tidak tahu masalahnya. Untuk pembenahan, kami menggulirkan program “C and C”, yaitu Clear and Clean. Dengan program, C and C itu kami memberi status pada perusahaan tambang. Kalau su-dah “clear”, berarti dokumen-dokumennya sudah beres. Kalau “clean”, berarti sudah ti-dak ada tumpang tindih. Dan itu diumumkan ke publik sehingga semua orang tahu siapa yang bermasalah dan siapa yang tidak. Yang bermasalah bisa jadi tidak bisa mendapatkan pinjaman dari bank. Juga tidak akan bisa mendapatkan bantuan dari perusahaaan-pe-rusahaan pembiayaan lain karena statusnya bermasalah.

Bagaimana sebenarnya proses dan prosedur untuk memperoleh izin?

Mereka biasanya melakukan pencanang-an wilayah dulu, minta atau pesan dulu satu wilayah tertentu. Setelah itu dilakukan pengecekan lapangan. Kemudian mereka bilang ke pemerintah, “oke saya jadi ambil”. Nanti dilihat oleh pemerintah apakah dari sisi finansial oke, dari sisi kelayakan oke. Jika oke semua, baru dikasih izin. Setelah izin baru mereka melakukan eksplorasi selama

3-5 tahun. Kalau sudah 3-5 tahun eksplorasi dilanjutkan ke proses feasibility study (FS) atau studi kelayakan. Kalau berdasarkan FS tidak oke, tidak feasible, dikembalikan lagi izinnya. Kalau feasible, ya diteruskan proyeknya, baru setelah itu konstruksi. Setelah kontstruksi baru eksploitasi. Sebe-narnya, sejak 2009, sekarang ini tidak ada izin baru. Kalau ada izin baru setelah 2009 ke sini, itu batal demi hukum.

Kenapa begitu?Kecuali izin batuan. Sebab, setelah UU

Nomor 4 Tahun 2009 tentang minerba diter-bitkan, izin-izin baru harus melalui proses pelelangan. Proses pelelangan itu harus dilakukan di wilayah pertambangan. Apalagi, wilayah pertambangan pun sampai sekarang belum mendapatkan kesepakatan dari DPR karena kuncinya untuk ini pemerintah harus sudah punya konsep yang disampaikan ke DPR. Jika DPR sepakat, oke. Nah, sampai sekarang belum ada kesepakatan dari DPR. Belum ada yang menyatakan oke, setuju, atau bagaimana. Belum ada.

Sepertinya makin panjang ya proses

izin yang baru ini? Ya, lelangnya di wilayah pertambangan.

Kalau tambang batu bara, ya di wilayah usaha pertambangan batu bara (WUPB). Nanti ada wilayah izinnya. Wilayah izinnya ini nanti yang dilelang. Dan, sampai sekarang belum ada wilayah pertambangan (WP). Karena itu sebetulnya belum ada izin-izin baru.

Banyak keluhan dari pelaku tam-bang batu bara karena masih dibebani membangun infrastruktur sendiri. Apa tanggapan Anda?

Ya memang itu syaratnya, apalagi kalau sudah kelas medium ke atas. Dia harus punya akses jalan sendiri dan pelabuhan sendiri, maka dari itu disebut pelabuhan khusus. Kan, itu di wilayah tambang mereka, mereka harus bangun sendiri. Memang persyaratannya seperti itu supaya tidak dicampur dengan ke-butuhan lain, misalnya ada yang jualan batu bara di situ, ada jualan pakaian, ada jualan ayam, tidak bisa seperti itu. Batu bara ya batu bara saja di situ karena sangat riskan kalau dicampur dengan bisnis yang lain.

Berarti risikonya tinggi sekali?

Page 27: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

2�Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

W a W a n C a R a

Iya, Anda bayangkan, bagaimana bisa alat-alat berat keluar masuk dicampur de-ngan yang lain. Kalaupun tidak membangun sendiri, seperti diatur di dalam UU, mereka wajib punya fasilitas sendiri dan tidak bo-leh menggunakan jalan negara. Kalau dia menggunakan jalan negara, harus dihentikan seperti kasus di Sumses, di Tanjung Enim, di mana mereka menggunakan jalan negara dari Tanjung Enim ke Lahat dan ke Palembang. Misalnya, truk-truk gede masuk jalan umum, itu tidak boleh. Harus pakai jalan mereka sendiri atau mereka bersama-sama dengan penambang lain membikin jalan sendiri atau menggunakan fasilitas jalan pihak ke-tiga. Misalkan ada jalan yang khusus untuk tambang, pihak ketiga yang membangun, mereka yang menggunakan. Nanti ada aturan mainnya, silakan saja. Tapi tidak boleh pakai jalan umum.

Dengan fluktuasi harga batu bara seperti saat ini, bagaimana Anda me-lihat bisnis tambang ini ke depan dan bagaimana perannya pada penerimaan negara?

Naik turunnya harga memang tidak bisa diprediksi. Tapi jika melihat trennya, harga batu bara akan stabil sekitar bulan Mei-Juni ini, sekitar 90 dolar AS. Tapi, sekali lagi, faktanya banyak kejadian yang membuat fluktuasi harga memang tidak bisa diprediksi. Contohnya, sekarang ada larangan impor

batu bara mutu rendah dari China. Isu lain, China akan mengurangi penggunaan batu bara domestiknya. Akhirnya, penggunaan batu bara di dunia berkurang dan ini akan berakibat oversupply. Oversupply ini akan berimbas pada harga batu bara kita juga. Sebab, tujuan utama ekspor batu bara kita memang ke China. Pemakai batu bara ter-besar di dunia juga China.

Mungkinkah nanti kita memakai batu bara sendiri untuk kebutuhan dalam ne-geri seperti China?

Sekarang saja kita sudah menetapkan DMO 82 juta ton (2012). Kenyataannya, hanya tercapai 64 karena PLN tidak menca-pai selebihnya. Kan, yang menggunakan batu bara terbesar di kita PLN sekitar 75 persen dari DMO. Sisanya baru industri lain. Nah, sekarang PLN juga terbatas. Itu pun penggu-naan batu bara di PLN sudah paling banyak, hampir 60 persen listrik kita itu dari batu bara, yang pembangkit lain 40 persen.

Melihat trennya seperti itu, bagaima-na tingkat persaingan di antara pelaku tambang sendiri?

Yang IUP sudah di ujung tanduk. Sudah eksplorasi, sudah konstruksi, dan mereka harus produksi. Kalau tidak produksi sema-kin rugi. Ini terjadi karena efek dari izin-izin yang diterbitkan pemda yang jumlahnya lebih dari 10.000 itu. Sekarang, mau tidak

mau mereka harus produksi juga karena kalau tidak kerugiannya terlalu besar. Bisa saja terjadi sebagian ada yang mati, terutama yang kecil-kecil itu. Atau yang penggalian-nya dikurangi. Memang begitu bisnis tam-bang, penuh risiko.

Tapi kenapa pemainnya semakin banyak?

Karena di kita itu, kan, orangnya ikut-ikutan. Begitu ada satu yang berhasil, semua orang nambang, semua orang terlibat di tambang. Begitu sudah semua di sana, di ujung tanduk juga akhirnya.

Bagaimana dengan tingkat persaingan di pasar internasional?

Batu bara kita sudah punya pasar. Pasar kita sudah stabil. Sudah tidak ada masalah. Hanya, yang menjadi masalah itu soal fluk-tuasi harga tadi. Pengguna tetap batu bara kita itu Jepang, kemudian Taiwan, Korea, China, dan India. Itu semua pasar kita. Tak ada masalah. Artinya, pasar ekspor kita sudah sangat tertata. Cuma ini yang akan jadi masalah adalah tambang-tambang yang baru muncul ini. Sebab, produk mereka akan semakin membanjiri pasar, dan harga akan terpengaruh lagi. Jadi, ke depan, memang yang sangat penting dilakukan pengendalian. Itu sesuai UU Minerba. Tapi reaksi orang macam-macam. Misalnya, ada yang bilang, “Saya baru nambang sekarang, kok, sudah mau dikendalikan? Itu juga dilema.

Terobosan apa yang dilakukan peme-rintah sebagai regulator?

Saya bilang tadi, kebijakan kita kan tidak bisa berdiri sendiri, karena memang terkait sama yang lain. Kalau untuk batu bara itu pengendalian, tetapi kalau untuk mineral itu adalah peningkatan nilai tambah. Sehingga orang itu mau membangun smellter di kita, mau membangun pabrik besi, nikel, kita bangunlah. Jadi, nanti kalau kita jual bukan berupa tanah air lagi, tanahnya tetap saja di sini. Kita jual kalau sudah jadi logam. Kita, kan, tidak seperti negara lain. Kenapa negara lain bangun industri nikel, karena di sana membutuhkan logam yang besar jumlahnya.

Sepertinya cukup ruwet ya?Kita belum masuk mineral, sangat ru-

wet. q

Page 28: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

2� Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

a R t i K E L

19TH Annual Pacific Rim Real Estate Society ConferenceMelbourne Australia, 13–16 January 2013

THE VALUATION OF LONG LIFE MINES: CURRENT ISSUES AND METHODOLOGIES

CHRIS EVES1

ABSTRACT The past decade has seen an increasing focus on the mining and

extractive industries in Australia. The significant increases in both new mines, commodity prices and employment opportunities has lead to considerable discussion on the value of this industry and the contribution that the industry makes to exports, GDP and the public in general. This debate has resulted in the introduction of the Mineral Resources Rent Tax being introduced in 2012. An issue that follows from the introduction of these taxes is the current exposure of property valuers to mine and extractive industry valuations and the most ap-propriate method that should be employed for valuing long life mines for rating and taxing purposes, finance and accounting purposes.

This paper will provide a detailed review of past and current valuation methods for long life mines and will highlight the current issues and problem facing valuers who are currently working in or intend to carry out valuation work in this industry

Keywords: Mining, extractive industries, mine valuation, valu-

ation methodology

1.0 Introduction The valuation of long life mines raises a number of valuation is-

sues that are unique to this industry and as such can provide a number of critical concerns and problems facing the valuer when determining the value of a mine for a range of valuation purposes. Foremost in this current situation is the accuracy and appropriateness of current valuation methods for determining both the value of existing mine operations and the feasibility value of a proposed or new mining operation. A better understanding of the existing mine and extrac-tive industries valuation requirements, methods and determination is required for valuers to meet the valuation requirements of mine operators, financial institutions and government bodies. Current mine operators and potential industry participants require valuation methodologies that provide reliable data and figures to assist in the assessment of value at the feasibility stage, as well as at specific

points in time of the mine life for reporting purposes. Potential finance providers also require accurate mine and extractive industries valu-ations for lending security purposes and these need to be consistent and reliable, as well as being able to be carried out by a range of valuation practitioners. The complicated nature of mining, the long term nature of these operations and the difficulties and valuation risks that have been identified as major obstacles for the valuation profession and the ability to supply the mining industry with the most accurate and reliable valuation information and reports. Current valu-ation methods employed by property and business valuers are based on real property specific methods that are not always transferable to a mining situation, especially a long term mine operation. The nature of real property valuation methods rely on the availability of comparable sales information, readily available access to current property data and very industry specific measures of risk associated with real property ownership and occupation. Many of the economic and industry risks associated with the valuation methods employed in real property valuation are also issues that can impact on mining and extractive industries, but the assessment of risk for real property valuation is based on a single measure determined by a discount or capitalisation rate. Although this is suitable for real property valua-tion methods, the complexity of mining operations, their long term nature, global perspective and interrelationship between production, commodity, fiancé and political risk, renders current real property valuation methods insufficient for long life mine valuation. Many of these valuation issues also impact on the feasibility assessment of long life mines.

To increase the level of awareness, degree of accuracy and the acceptance of end mine valuation figures it is crucial that all direct and indirect participants in the mining industry have full confidence in the actual valuation methodology and underlying assumptions and guidelines. Currently; there is a certain level of discrepancy between the valuation guidelines issues by mining bodies, the professional practice standards published by valuation boards and the requirements of the mining industry players. In addition, the industry recognises the high level of risk associated with any mining enterprise or project and any valuation method or guidelines that can take the various sources and levels of risk into account in the actual valuation methodology will result in both more accurate and reliable valuations and will also provide a greater level of confidence in the feasibility studies carried out at the mine planning stage.

Paper Scope and Aims

This paper will address these issues by: • Carryout an extensive literature review to document and

understand the current issues relating to mine and extractive industry valuation issues from the perspective of: Real property valuation Current mining boards and authorities Valuation standards and guidelines

• Identifying the major issues that impact on the accuracy and reliability of current real property valuation methods and their implementation in mine valuation

Mining Valuation Standards and Guidelines

This paper and review of mining valuation methodologies and valuation guidelines has been segregated into several research ar-eas. An in-depth reading, data gathering and interpretation found a number of areas of studies in relation to mining valuation and have been identified as follows: a) International practices of mining valuation which should discuss

on the manual, codes and standards that have been applied world-wide in regards to mining valuation;

b) Risk assessment in mining valuation which highlights the com-mon valuation approaches applied in the mining industries; and

c) Alternative approaches that have been suggested and implemented by various scholars and practitioners to determine the value of mining businesses. A literature review of the above subject areas and the summarisa-

tion of the findings are discussed further below.

International Practices of Mining Valuation – Manual, Codes and Standards

International Mining Standards (Mine Valuation) The peak mining bodies throughout the world have compiled

details of the various valuation methods that can be used to determine the value of a mine. Although these codes provide a listing of the valuation methods that can be adopted they don’t provide any actual instructions or guidelines on how such valuations should be carried out. The following details the various valuation methods proposed for mine valuation across the main mining countries in the world.

Australia (The Valmin Code, 2005) This code states that the decisions on the valuation methodology

to be used are the responsibility of the expert or specialist depend-ing on:

a. The nature of valuation b. The development status of the mineral c. The extent and reliability of information available. The valuer must state the reason for each methodology used.

The Valmin Code does not state any specific method for extractive industry valuation , however does recognise and refer to the MICA website or other website on valuation methodologies. In the MICA website, there are discussion papers on valuation methodology for

Page 29: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

2�Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

a R t i K E L

19TH Annual Pacific Rim Real Estate Society ConferenceMelbourne Australia, 13–16 January 2013

THE VALUATION OF LONG LIFE MINES: CURRENT ISSUES AND METHODOLOGIES

CHRIS EVES1

ABSTRACT The past decade has seen an increasing focus on the mining and

extractive industries in Australia. The significant increases in both new mines, commodity prices and employment opportunities has lead to considerable discussion on the value of this industry and the contribution that the industry makes to exports, GDP and the public in general. This debate has resulted in the introduction of the Mineral Resources Rent Tax being introduced in 2012. An issue that follows from the introduction of these taxes is the current exposure of property valuers to mine and extractive industry valuations and the most ap-propriate method that should be employed for valuing long life mines for rating and taxing purposes, finance and accounting purposes.

This paper will provide a detailed review of past and current valuation methods for long life mines and will highlight the current issues and problem facing valuers who are currently working in or intend to carry out valuation work in this industry

Keywords: Mining, extractive industries, mine valuation, valu-

ation methodology

1.0 Introduction The valuation of long life mines raises a number of valuation is-

sues that are unique to this industry and as such can provide a number of critical concerns and problems facing the valuer when determining the value of a mine for a range of valuation purposes. Foremost in this current situation is the accuracy and appropriateness of current valuation methods for determining both the value of existing mine operations and the feasibility value of a proposed or new mining operation. A better understanding of the existing mine and extrac-tive industries valuation requirements, methods and determination is required for valuers to meet the valuation requirements of mine operators, financial institutions and government bodies. Current mine operators and potential industry participants require valuation methodologies that provide reliable data and figures to assist in the assessment of value at the feasibility stage, as well as at specific

points in time of the mine life for reporting purposes. Potential finance providers also require accurate mine and extractive industries valu-ations for lending security purposes and these need to be consistent and reliable, as well as being able to be carried out by a range of valuation practitioners. The complicated nature of mining, the long term nature of these operations and the difficulties and valuation risks that have been identified as major obstacles for the valuation profession and the ability to supply the mining industry with the most accurate and reliable valuation information and reports. Current valu-ation methods employed by property and business valuers are based on real property specific methods that are not always transferable to a mining situation, especially a long term mine operation. The nature of real property valuation methods rely on the availability of comparable sales information, readily available access to current property data and very industry specific measures of risk associated with real property ownership and occupation. Many of the economic and industry risks associated with the valuation methods employed in real property valuation are also issues that can impact on mining and extractive industries, but the assessment of risk for real property valuation is based on a single measure determined by a discount or capitalisation rate. Although this is suitable for real property valua-tion methods, the complexity of mining operations, their long term nature, global perspective and interrelationship between production, commodity, fiancé and political risk, renders current real property valuation methods insufficient for long life mine valuation. Many of these valuation issues also impact on the feasibility assessment of long life mines.

To increase the level of awareness, degree of accuracy and the acceptance of end mine valuation figures it is crucial that all direct and indirect participants in the mining industry have full confidence in the actual valuation methodology and underlying assumptions and guidelines. Currently; there is a certain level of discrepancy between the valuation guidelines issues by mining bodies, the professional practice standards published by valuation boards and the requirements of the mining industry players. In addition, the industry recognises the high level of risk associated with any mining enterprise or project and any valuation method or guidelines that can take the various sources and levels of risk into account in the actual valuation methodology will result in both more accurate and reliable valuations and will also provide a greater level of confidence in the feasibility studies carried out at the mine planning stage.

Paper Scope and Aims

This paper will address these issues by: • Carryout an extensive literature review to document and

understand the current issues relating to mine and extractive industry valuation issues from the perspective of: Real property valuation Current mining boards and authorities Valuation standards and guidelines

• Identifying the major issues that impact on the accuracy and reliability of current real property valuation methods and their implementation in mine valuation

Mining Valuation Standards and Guidelines

This paper and review of mining valuation methodologies and valuation guidelines has been segregated into several research ar-eas. An in-depth reading, data gathering and interpretation found a number of areas of studies in relation to mining valuation and have been identified as follows: a) International practices of mining valuation which should discuss

on the manual, codes and standards that have been applied world-wide in regards to mining valuation;

b) Risk assessment in mining valuation which highlights the com-mon valuation approaches applied in the mining industries; and

c) Alternative approaches that have been suggested and implemented by various scholars and practitioners to determine the value of mining businesses. A literature review of the above subject areas and the summarisa-

tion of the findings are discussed further below.

International Practices of Mining Valuation – Manual, Codes and Standards

International Mining Standards (Mine Valuation) The peak mining bodies throughout the world have compiled

details of the various valuation methods that can be used to determine the value of a mine. Although these codes provide a listing of the valuation methods that can be adopted they don’t provide any actual instructions or guidelines on how such valuations should be carried out. The following details the various valuation methods proposed for mine valuation across the main mining countries in the world.

Australia (The Valmin Code, 2005) This code states that the decisions on the valuation methodology

to be used are the responsibility of the expert or specialist depend-ing on:

a. The nature of valuation b. The development status of the mineral c. The extent and reliability of information available. The valuer must state the reason for each methodology used.

The Valmin Code does not state any specific method for extractive industry valuation , however does recognise and refer to the MICA website or other website on valuation methodologies. In the MICA website, there are discussion papers on valuation methodology for

Page 30: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

30 Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

a R t i K E L

extractive industries. The papers highlighted: a. Income Method: DCF/NPV Method b. Market Sales Method c. Cost Method d. Useful Rating Method e. Option Theory Method The first three mentioned valuation approaches are common

valuation methods for real property valuation and are suitable the valuation of property where there is an established trading market, a reasonable volume of transaction data and full access to all financial and production data. In the case of mining, many of these criteria are not available. The two remaining mine valuation methods are not commonly used in property valuation and would be unfamiliar to the majority of the profession.

Canada (CIMVal, 2004) The CIMVal recognises the following valuation methodologies

and approaches for mine and extractive industries: Income Approach

• Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) • Monte Carlo Analysis • Option Pricing • Probabilistic

Market Approach • Comparable Transactions • Option Agreement Terms • Gross “in-situ” metal value • Net Metal Value or Value Per Unit of Metal • Value Per Unit Area • Market Capitalisation

Cost Approach • Appraised Value • Multiple of Exploration Expenditure • Geo-science Factor

Agian, the majority of these reported valuation methods are not always commonly used in property valuation practice, but are more commonly used in mine feasibility studies.

2.1 South Africa (SamVal, 2008) In South Africa, the accepted valuation methods are Cash Flow

Approach, Market Approach and Cost Approach. The valuer must apply at least two (2) methods in the valuation report.

2.2 USA (USPAP)

There are no descriptions about extractive industry valuations in the USPAP even though mineral is classified part of real property. It depends on the purpose of the report: a. For normal valuation (loan, sales, etc) – reference to the USPAP

Standard 1 & 2. b. For business valuation – reference to the USPAP Standard 9 &

10. c. Machinery for mining – Fall under “Personal Property” valuation

– reference to the USPAP Standard 7 & 8. According to USPAP Standard 1 & 2, the three (3) valuation

methods accepted are DCF, Cost and Sales Comparison methods.

USMinval is the proposed valuation standards for extractive indus-tries in US, but still has not been officialised since the last draft in 2003. However, it stated in the draft, the following methods can be considered for mine valuations:

Income Approach 1. Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) 2. Option Pricing 3. Monte Carlo Analysis 4. Probabilistic Method

Cost Approach 1. Appraised Value Method 2. Multiple of Exploration Expenditure 3. Geo-science Factor Method

Market Approach Comparable Transactions

1. Option Agreement Terms 2. Gross ‘in-situ” value 3. Net Metal Value or Value Per Unit of Metal 4. Value Per Unit Area 5. Market Capitalisation

The draft USMinval adopted the Australian Valmin Code. The Canadian have adopted the USMinval Proposed Code and came out with their own version of CIMVal Code in 2004.

A common issue with all these international standards and guidelines for mine and extractive industry valuations is the fact that although the valuation methods are provided, this guidance is very general and does not provide any formal information on the applicability of process of any of the valuation methods. They all assume that there is adequate market information and data available for each of the valuation methods to be used. In reality this is rarely the case in this particular property and industry sector.

Australian and International Property Valuation Standards

The valuation profession both in Australia and internationally applies valuation standards and guidelines for specific classes of real property. These standards address the valuation method that should be adopted for each class of property and in some cases will also address the main issues that impact on the potential value of those

property assets. In respect to the property valuation profession the overarching

principles and guidelines are stated in the International Valuation standards, with each individual country also publishing their own guidance notes and standards that follow the general principles in the International Valuation Standards. The Australian Property Institute and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors are the two main property valuation professional bodies in Australia and both have attempted to provide guidelines and standards for Australian Valuers practising or potentially practising in the area of mine and extractive industry valuation.

International Valuation Standards

IVS (June, 2010) indicates that the IVSB do not approve new funding for extractive valuation standards. Instead, The IVSB needs to collaborate with the extractive industries players in regards to the level of interest in valuation standards for extractive industries. Currently there is no proposed standards or and valuation methods for extractive industries.

However, in 2003 the IVSC has produced a proposed draft of the Guidance Notes for Extractive Industries valuation. The draft indi-cated that the market valuation of an Extractive Industry Property as Real Property must be based on the Highest and Best Use (HBU) of the property. The draft also stated the three (3) valuation approaches generally available for consideration: l Income (Capitalisation) Approach including market-related

discounted cash flow; l Sales Comparison Approach (termed Market Approach for

Business Valuations) generally by indirect means; l Cost Approach (term Asset-Based Approach for Business

Valuation), including Depreciated Replacement Cost and Equivalent Cost Analysis.

The draft IVS mine valuation guidance notes have since been withdrawn and are to be replaced with Technical information Paper (TAP). As stated in the introduction of this paper, the level of expertise of the typical property valuer is very limited in relation to the under-standing and application of valuation methods for the valuation of long life mines. This is further hindered by the very limited informa-tion that is contained in the IVS valuation guidelines. As is the case for some of the mining body standards, the valuation methods suggested by the IVS and API are very suitable for commercial, industrial and rural property but due to the nature of mines and extractive indus-tries are not as relevant for this property and business class. Again, the limited number of participants in the market, the small pool of properties or operations, the high production and commodity price risk level of the industry, the long term nature of the operations, the diverse type of operations and the small transaction pool limit the use of traditional valuation methods for this property class.

Royal institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS)

RICS is the leading international professional body for real property valuers, with a global presence and regional offices in UK, Western Europe, US, Asia and Australia. This professional body also sets standards and guidelines for a range of property sector valuations. In 2011 RICS released valuation guidelines for mineral bearing land

and waste management sites. Like the IVS standards, these RICS valuation guidance notes

are produced to provide valuers with the necessary information to undertake the valuation of specific types of property. As stated by the RICS:

“Guidance notes provide advice to RICS members on aspects of their work. Where procedures are recommended for specific professional tasks, these are intended to represent best practice, i.e. procedures which in the opinion of RICS meet a high standard of professional competence”. (RICS, 2011)

This standard lists the various purposes for the valuation of mines and extractive industries including:

• Financial reporting • Sales and acquisition • Company mergers • Public and/or private funding • Rent or royalty review • Taxation • Litigation • Building and plant and equipment valuation for insurance

purposes Although these RICS guidelines provide some basic information

in respect to the complexities of mineral bearing land valuation, such as

• interest being valued – surface, natural resource and/or opera-tion;

• ownership of other minerals and right to disturb • rights to work and withdraw support; • tenure – freehold and/or leasehold; • type of natural resource being extracted; • annual quantity and quality of materials being, or proposed

to be, extracted; • production yields achieved, or to be achieved, after process-

ing; • saleable outputs of the operation; • geology and hydrogeology of the natural resource; • planning, permitting and licensing relevant to the property; • financials – ex-pit selling prices, operational costs and/or

surplus trading profits (margins); • market feasibility study for all saleable products; • rehabilitation/restoration requirements; • residual income or alternative end use value; • subsidence or withdrawal of support liabilities; and/or • discharge liabilities. (RICS, 2011)

There are no substantial RICS definitions of these major issues and no specific information on the valuation methods that should be adopted, nor any actual guidelines on how the valuation should be carried out.

For accurate mine valuations to be carried out by property valu-ers, it is vital that these valuers have a thorough understanding of the mining industry and the impact of operations on mine value

Review of Valuation Methodologies

The following provides a summary of the current valuation meth-ods employed by valuers in the assessment of mines and extractive

Page 31: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

3�Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

a R t i K E L

extractive industries. The papers highlighted: a. Income Method: DCF/NPV Method b. Market Sales Method c. Cost Method d. Useful Rating Method e. Option Theory Method The first three mentioned valuation approaches are common

valuation methods for real property valuation and are suitable the valuation of property where there is an established trading market, a reasonable volume of transaction data and full access to all financial and production data. In the case of mining, many of these criteria are not available. The two remaining mine valuation methods are not commonly used in property valuation and would be unfamiliar to the majority of the profession.

Canada (CIMVal, 2004) The CIMVal recognises the following valuation methodologies

and approaches for mine and extractive industries: Income Approach

• Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) • Monte Carlo Analysis • Option Pricing • Probabilistic

Market Approach • Comparable Transactions • Option Agreement Terms • Gross “in-situ” metal value • Net Metal Value or Value Per Unit of Metal • Value Per Unit Area • Market Capitalisation

Cost Approach • Appraised Value • Multiple of Exploration Expenditure • Geo-science Factor

Agian, the majority of these reported valuation methods are not always commonly used in property valuation practice, but are more commonly used in mine feasibility studies.

2.1 South Africa (SamVal, 2008) In South Africa, the accepted valuation methods are Cash Flow

Approach, Market Approach and Cost Approach. The valuer must apply at least two (2) methods in the valuation report.

2.2 USA (USPAP)

There are no descriptions about extractive industry valuations in the USPAP even though mineral is classified part of real property. It depends on the purpose of the report: a. For normal valuation (loan, sales, etc) – reference to the USPAP

Standard 1 & 2. b. For business valuation – reference to the USPAP Standard 9 &

10. c. Machinery for mining – Fall under “Personal Property” valuation

– reference to the USPAP Standard 7 & 8. According to USPAP Standard 1 & 2, the three (3) valuation

methods accepted are DCF, Cost and Sales Comparison methods.

USMinval is the proposed valuation standards for extractive indus-tries in US, but still has not been officialised since the last draft in 2003. However, it stated in the draft, the following methods can be considered for mine valuations:

Income Approach 1. Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) 2. Option Pricing 3. Monte Carlo Analysis 4. Probabilistic Method

Cost Approach 1. Appraised Value Method 2. Multiple of Exploration Expenditure 3. Geo-science Factor Method

Market Approach Comparable Transactions

1. Option Agreement Terms 2. Gross ‘in-situ” value 3. Net Metal Value or Value Per Unit of Metal 4. Value Per Unit Area 5. Market Capitalisation

The draft USMinval adopted the Australian Valmin Code. The Canadian have adopted the USMinval Proposed Code and came out with their own version of CIMVal Code in 2004.

A common issue with all these international standards and guidelines for mine and extractive industry valuations is the fact that although the valuation methods are provided, this guidance is very general and does not provide any formal information on the applicability of process of any of the valuation methods. They all assume that there is adequate market information and data available for each of the valuation methods to be used. In reality this is rarely the case in this particular property and industry sector.

Australian and International Property Valuation Standards

The valuation profession both in Australia and internationally applies valuation standards and guidelines for specific classes of real property. These standards address the valuation method that should be adopted for each class of property and in some cases will also address the main issues that impact on the potential value of those

property assets. In respect to the property valuation profession the overarching

principles and guidelines are stated in the International Valuation standards, with each individual country also publishing their own guidance notes and standards that follow the general principles in the International Valuation Standards. The Australian Property Institute and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors are the two main property valuation professional bodies in Australia and both have attempted to provide guidelines and standards for Australian Valuers practising or potentially practising in the area of mine and extractive industry valuation.

International Valuation Standards

IVS (June, 2010) indicates that the IVSB do not approve new funding for extractive valuation standards. Instead, The IVSB needs to collaborate with the extractive industries players in regards to the level of interest in valuation standards for extractive industries. Currently there is no proposed standards or and valuation methods for extractive industries.

However, in 2003 the IVSC has produced a proposed draft of the Guidance Notes for Extractive Industries valuation. The draft indi-cated that the market valuation of an Extractive Industry Property as Real Property must be based on the Highest and Best Use (HBU) of the property. The draft also stated the three (3) valuation approaches generally available for consideration: l Income (Capitalisation) Approach including market-related

discounted cash flow; l Sales Comparison Approach (termed Market Approach for

Business Valuations) generally by indirect means; l Cost Approach (term Asset-Based Approach for Business

Valuation), including Depreciated Replacement Cost and Equivalent Cost Analysis.

The draft IVS mine valuation guidance notes have since been withdrawn and are to be replaced with Technical information Paper (TAP). As stated in the introduction of this paper, the level of expertise of the typical property valuer is very limited in relation to the under-standing and application of valuation methods for the valuation of long life mines. This is further hindered by the very limited informa-tion that is contained in the IVS valuation guidelines. As is the case for some of the mining body standards, the valuation methods suggested by the IVS and API are very suitable for commercial, industrial and rural property but due to the nature of mines and extractive indus-tries are not as relevant for this property and business class. Again, the limited number of participants in the market, the small pool of properties or operations, the high production and commodity price risk level of the industry, the long term nature of the operations, the diverse type of operations and the small transaction pool limit the use of traditional valuation methods for this property class.

Royal institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS)

RICS is the leading international professional body for real property valuers, with a global presence and regional offices in UK, Western Europe, US, Asia and Australia. This professional body also sets standards and guidelines for a range of property sector valuations. In 2011 RICS released valuation guidelines for mineral bearing land

and waste management sites. Like the IVS standards, these RICS valuation guidance notes

are produced to provide valuers with the necessary information to undertake the valuation of specific types of property. As stated by the RICS:

“Guidance notes provide advice to RICS members on aspects of their work. Where procedures are recommended for specific professional tasks, these are intended to represent best practice, i.e. procedures which in the opinion of RICS meet a high standard of professional competence”. (RICS, 2011)

This standard lists the various purposes for the valuation of mines and extractive industries including:

• Financial reporting • Sales and acquisition • Company mergers • Public and/or private funding • Rent or royalty review • Taxation • Litigation • Building and plant and equipment valuation for insurance

purposes Although these RICS guidelines provide some basic information

in respect to the complexities of mineral bearing land valuation, such as

• interest being valued – surface, natural resource and/or opera-tion;

• ownership of other minerals and right to disturb • rights to work and withdraw support; • tenure – freehold and/or leasehold; • type of natural resource being extracted; • annual quantity and quality of materials being, or proposed

to be, extracted; • production yields achieved, or to be achieved, after process-

ing; • saleable outputs of the operation; • geology and hydrogeology of the natural resource; • planning, permitting and licensing relevant to the property; • financials – ex-pit selling prices, operational costs and/or

surplus trading profits (margins); • market feasibility study for all saleable products; • rehabilitation/restoration requirements; • residual income or alternative end use value; • subsidence or withdrawal of support liabilities; and/or • discharge liabilities. (RICS, 2011)

There are no substantial RICS definitions of these major issues and no specific information on the valuation methods that should be adopted, nor any actual guidelines on how the valuation should be carried out.

For accurate mine valuations to be carried out by property valu-ers, it is vital that these valuers have a thorough understanding of the mining industry and the impact of operations on mine value

Review of Valuation Methodologies

The following provides a summary of the current valuation meth-ods employed by valuers in the assessment of mines and extractive

Page 32: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

32 Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

a R t i K E L

industries for a range of valuation purposes. As stated in the previous section the various purposes for carrying out a valuation of a mine or extractive industry is not only for the initial feasibility of the project but also includes:

• Financial reporting • Sales and acquisition • Company mergers • Public and/or private funding • Rent or royalty review • Taxation • Litigation • Building and plant and equipment valuation for insurance

purposes The purpose of the valuation also an important factor in determin-

ing the valuation method that needs to be adopted and the information and data that is required to carry out the valuation. There have been a number of academic and industry papers in relation to the valuation methods that should be adopted for the valuation of mineral bearing land and these are discussed below and a comparative summary is provided in Table 1.

Scott (2010) categorises valuation methodologies based on the following:

• Traditional methodologies (Market comparison approach, cost approach and income approach) including discounted cash flow methodology.

• Alternative valuation methodologies including adjusted pres-ent value, certainty equivalents, decision trees and real option valuation.

• Quantitative risk assessment techniques including sensitivity analysis, scenario analysis and monte carlo simulation.

Previously, most authors generally agreed that discounted cash flow analysis should be the principal valuation method.

However, some of them dismissed it as not applicable to certain categories of mineral property as follows:

o Bruce et al (1994) states that rigorous, methodical and pre-scriptive valuations of exploration properties are in general spurious unless the assumptions and the subjective judge-ments that have been used are fully disclosed.

o According to Lawrence (1994), the expected value method (DCF) has little application in the valuation of exploration mineral assets.

o Butler (1994) considers DCF techniques only applicable when sufficient information is available to quantify, with some confidence most of the parameters affecting the value.

o Edward (1994) views is rather confused. The mining valuer is expected to have undertaken a probability analysis and applied significant discounts to reflect the uncertainty/prob-ability of ultimately recouping the cash flows reflected in the DCF value. Difficulties arise if the DCF methods have been applied to simplistically to exploration properties without due regard to allowing for probability.

McFarlane (2002) agrees that DCF is the best approach of valua-tion of extractive industries in South Africa, if there is an availability and adequate of data. However, most valuers preferred the so-called technical valuation methods for mineral properties without defining

resources where the value is inferred through: o The exchange value of similar properties, the Comparable

Sales method; o The willingness to pay to participate in a share of expected

future returns, the Joint-Venture method; o Value inferred through prior exploration expenditure, the Mul-

tiple of Exploration Expenditure method (Cost Approach); and

o Subjective rating of attributes most frequently requisite to successful mining, the Geoscience Rating method.

According to Lawrence (1994), the valuation methodology chosen to value a mineral asset depends upon the amount of data available on that asset and the reliance that can be placed on the data. In the same vein, commenting on the quality of data and reliability of forecasts used in discounted cash flow calculation, O’Connor and McMahon (1994) warned that it is important not to allow the science of the methodology to dominate the assessment. In other words, subjective judgements are more important than objective valuations.

The Table 1 below shows the Comparison of Valuation Method-ologies from international practices:

Where DCF is applied there is a disagreement concerning the treatment of risk and the selection of the discount rate:

o Ballard (1994) was satisfied that risk can be accommodated through a discount rate estimated by means of Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM).

o O’Connor and McMahon (1994) recognise the deficiencies of CAPM but apply it in the absence of what they termed a better methodology.

o Runge (1994) considers that the uncertainties in mineral valuation are too project specific to be assessed using the CAPM.

o Butler (1994) regards Monte-Carlo simulation as impractical and is happier with the presentation of discrete sensitivi-ties.

o O’Connor & McMahon (1994) point out that NPV is only one input into a mining investment decision and discusses other relevant inputs including the special strategic intervals of the company.

o Runge (1994), Lonergan (1994) and Winsen (1994) insist that managerial flexibility be incorporated into valuation analysis. This is especially relevant to sensitivity analysis as it is commonly applied in which mine management is assumed to blindly follow a fixed operating plan irrespective of what commodity prices are doing.

In valuing exploration tenements, most authors considered it misleading to conduct NPV analysis on speculative data. Sorentino (2000) claims that it is surprising that no attempt has been made to estimate the accuracy of these methods on the basis of statistical analysis or simulation experiments. Valuation of exploration tene-ments appears well suited to a subjective probability treatment and it is surprising that this approach has not been either attempted more frequently or more strongly advocated by valuers.

Risk Assessment in Mining Valuation: Valuation Approaches

The following section of the paper details and discusses the various mine and extractive industry valuation methods that are cur-rently undertaken to assess mine value. From the previous sections a number of valuation methodologies have been discarded from this overview as they are considered inappropriate methods due to their simplistic approach, lack of comparable evidence or their inability to arrive at a figure that is realistic or supportable. The market based valuation methods such as direct comparison is stated to be an ac-ceptable method by both the mining codes as well as the valuation professional bodies; however, in reality few mines sell on the open

market, it is extremely rare for a number of mines to be similar in size, ore quality, reserves, resources and operational requirements. On this basis a direct comparison between the mine being valued and recent sales is not practical or reliable for any valuation purpose. A similar situation exists for valuing a mine or extractive industry on a cost or summation valuation basis. This valuation method does not consider any of the risk factors associated with mining.

Therefore the discussion on mine valuation methods will fo-cus on the various income approaches, especially those valuation methods that consider risk in the valuation calculation. The main factor that contributed to the mining valuation is how the risk was treated. Therefore, many scholars have discussed on the valuation approaches that been used in the market and suggestion of its benefits and weakness.

In risk assessment, the methods being employed are either sen-sitivity analysis, scenario analysis or probability simulation analysis (Monte Carlo simulation/MCS). The descriptive and explanation of each method as employed by various scholars are as follows:

Sensitive analysis

Torries (1998) mentions that this method involves the variance of a single project parameter to determine the influence that variable has on the potential NPV or IRR of the project. Often assessed at a specified percentage deviation from the base case, commonly ±10%, but the size of the deviation should be indicative of the likely volatility in the variable (Scott, 2010).

Table 1: Valuation Methods for Mineral Properties

Valuation Approach Valuation Method Method Ranking Comments Income Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Primary Very widely used. Generally accepted internationally as the preferred met Income Monte Carlo Analysis Primary Less widely used, but gaining in acceptance. Income Option Pricing Primary Not widely used and not widely understood but gaining in acceptance. Income Probabilistic Methods Not available Not widely used, not much accepted. Market Comparable transactions Primary Widely used with variations. Market Option Agreement Terms Primary Widely used but option aspect commonly not discounted, as it should be. Market Gross “in situ” Metal Value Not available Not widely used, and not accepted in Canadian mineral valuation. Market Net Metal Value or Value per Secondary Widely used rule of thumb. unit of metalMarket Value per Unit Area Secondary Used for large Exploration Properties. Market Market Capitalisation Secondary More applicable to valuation of single property asset of junior companies than to properties. Cost Appraised Value Primary Widely used but not accepted by all regulators. Cost Multiple of Exploration Primary Similar to the Appraised Value Method but includes Expenditure a multiplier factor. More commonly used in Australia. Cost Geoscience Factor Secondary Not widely used.

Source: USMINVAL (2003), CIMVAL (2004) and SAMVAL (2008)

Page 33: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

33Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

a R t i K E L

industries for a range of valuation purposes. As stated in the previous section the various purposes for carrying out a valuation of a mine or extractive industry is not only for the initial feasibility of the project but also includes:

• Financial reporting • Sales and acquisition • Company mergers • Public and/or private funding • Rent or royalty review • Taxation • Litigation • Building and plant and equipment valuation for insurance

purposes The purpose of the valuation also an important factor in determin-

ing the valuation method that needs to be adopted and the information and data that is required to carry out the valuation. There have been a number of academic and industry papers in relation to the valuation methods that should be adopted for the valuation of mineral bearing land and these are discussed below and a comparative summary is provided in Table 1.

Scott (2010) categorises valuation methodologies based on the following:

• Traditional methodologies (Market comparison approach, cost approach and income approach) including discounted cash flow methodology.

• Alternative valuation methodologies including adjusted pres-ent value, certainty equivalents, decision trees and real option valuation.

• Quantitative risk assessment techniques including sensitivity analysis, scenario analysis and monte carlo simulation.

Previously, most authors generally agreed that discounted cash flow analysis should be the principal valuation method.

However, some of them dismissed it as not applicable to certain categories of mineral property as follows:

o Bruce et al (1994) states that rigorous, methodical and pre-scriptive valuations of exploration properties are in general spurious unless the assumptions and the subjective judge-ments that have been used are fully disclosed.

o According to Lawrence (1994), the expected value method (DCF) has little application in the valuation of exploration mineral assets.

o Butler (1994) considers DCF techniques only applicable when sufficient information is available to quantify, with some confidence most of the parameters affecting the value.

o Edward (1994) views is rather confused. The mining valuer is expected to have undertaken a probability analysis and applied significant discounts to reflect the uncertainty/prob-ability of ultimately recouping the cash flows reflected in the DCF value. Difficulties arise if the DCF methods have been applied to simplistically to exploration properties without due regard to allowing for probability.

McFarlane (2002) agrees that DCF is the best approach of valua-tion of extractive industries in South Africa, if there is an availability and adequate of data. However, most valuers preferred the so-called technical valuation methods for mineral properties without defining

resources where the value is inferred through: o The exchange value of similar properties, the Comparable

Sales method; o The willingness to pay to participate in a share of expected

future returns, the Joint-Venture method; o Value inferred through prior exploration expenditure, the Mul-

tiple of Exploration Expenditure method (Cost Approach); and

o Subjective rating of attributes most frequently requisite to successful mining, the Geoscience Rating method.

According to Lawrence (1994), the valuation methodology chosen to value a mineral asset depends upon the amount of data available on that asset and the reliance that can be placed on the data. In the same vein, commenting on the quality of data and reliability of forecasts used in discounted cash flow calculation, O’Connor and McMahon (1994) warned that it is important not to allow the science of the methodology to dominate the assessment. In other words, subjective judgements are more important than objective valuations.

The Table 1 below shows the Comparison of Valuation Method-ologies from international practices:

Where DCF is applied there is a disagreement concerning the treatment of risk and the selection of the discount rate:

o Ballard (1994) was satisfied that risk can be accommodated through a discount rate estimated by means of Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM).

o O’Connor and McMahon (1994) recognise the deficiencies of CAPM but apply it in the absence of what they termed a better methodology.

o Runge (1994) considers that the uncertainties in mineral valuation are too project specific to be assessed using the CAPM.

o Butler (1994) regards Monte-Carlo simulation as impractical and is happier with the presentation of discrete sensitivi-ties.

o O’Connor & McMahon (1994) point out that NPV is only one input into a mining investment decision and discusses other relevant inputs including the special strategic intervals of the company.

o Runge (1994), Lonergan (1994) and Winsen (1994) insist that managerial flexibility be incorporated into valuation analysis. This is especially relevant to sensitivity analysis as it is commonly applied in which mine management is assumed to blindly follow a fixed operating plan irrespective of what commodity prices are doing.

In valuing exploration tenements, most authors considered it misleading to conduct NPV analysis on speculative data. Sorentino (2000) claims that it is surprising that no attempt has been made to estimate the accuracy of these methods on the basis of statistical analysis or simulation experiments. Valuation of exploration tene-ments appears well suited to a subjective probability treatment and it is surprising that this approach has not been either attempted more frequently or more strongly advocated by valuers.

Risk Assessment in Mining Valuation: Valuation Approaches

The following section of the paper details and discusses the various mine and extractive industry valuation methods that are cur-rently undertaken to assess mine value. From the previous sections a number of valuation methodologies have been discarded from this overview as they are considered inappropriate methods due to their simplistic approach, lack of comparable evidence or their inability to arrive at a figure that is realistic or supportable. The market based valuation methods such as direct comparison is stated to be an ac-ceptable method by both the mining codes as well as the valuation professional bodies; however, in reality few mines sell on the open

market, it is extremely rare for a number of mines to be similar in size, ore quality, reserves, resources and operational requirements. On this basis a direct comparison between the mine being valued and recent sales is not practical or reliable for any valuation purpose. A similar situation exists for valuing a mine or extractive industry on a cost or summation valuation basis. This valuation method does not consider any of the risk factors associated with mining.

Therefore the discussion on mine valuation methods will fo-cus on the various income approaches, especially those valuation methods that consider risk in the valuation calculation. The main factor that contributed to the mining valuation is how the risk was treated. Therefore, many scholars have discussed on the valuation approaches that been used in the market and suggestion of its benefits and weakness.

In risk assessment, the methods being employed are either sen-sitivity analysis, scenario analysis or probability simulation analysis (Monte Carlo simulation/MCS). The descriptive and explanation of each method as employed by various scholars are as follows:

Sensitive analysis

Torries (1998) mentions that this method involves the variance of a single project parameter to determine the influence that variable has on the potential NPV or IRR of the project. Often assessed at a specified percentage deviation from the base case, commonly ±10%, but the size of the deviation should be indicative of the likely volatility in the variable (Scott, 2010).

Table 1: Valuation Methods for Mineral Properties

Valuation Approach Valuation Method Method Ranking Comments Income Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Primary Very widely used. Generally accepted internationally as the preferred met Income Monte Carlo Analysis Primary Less widely used, but gaining in acceptance. Income Option Pricing Primary Not widely used and not widely understood but gaining in acceptance. Income Probabilistic Methods Not available Not widely used, not much accepted. Market Comparable transactions Primary Widely used with variations. Market Option Agreement Terms Primary Widely used but option aspect commonly not discounted, as it should be. Market Gross “in situ” Metal Value Not available Not widely used, and not accepted in Canadian mineral valuation. Market Net Metal Value or Value per Secondary Widely used rule of thumb. unit of metalMarket Value per Unit Area Secondary Used for large Exploration Properties. Market Market Capitalisation Secondary More applicable to valuation of single property asset of junior companies than to properties. Cost Appraised Value Primary Widely used but not accepted by all regulators. Cost Multiple of Exploration Primary Similar to the Appraised Value Method but includes Expenditure a multiplier factor. More commonly used in Australia. Cost Geoscience Factor Secondary Not widely used.

Source: USMINVAL (2003), CIMVAL (2004) and SAMVAL (2008)

Page 34: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

3� Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

a R t i K E L

Mun (2004) indicates the advantages by using this method which is: a. They are simple and inexpensive to perform and are easily fa-

cilitated through the modelling of probabilistic simulations. b. Useful in identifying the critical variables to a project’s suc-

cess. c. The identification provides management with direction as to

where limited resources would be best focused to reduce or mitigate uncertainties which have serious consequences on the outcome of a project. However, the only disadvantage of this methods is it provides

little information regarding the risk characteristics of the project but provides no information as to the likelihood of that uncertainty occurring.

Malone et al (2007) further highlighted that the variable as-sess in mineral project includes size of reserves, commodity price, quantity produced, operating costs, capital costs, exchange rates and discount rate.

According to Stirzaker (1997) and West (2006), sensitiv-ity analysis has been criticised for providing no knowledge of the project’s sensitivities. Experienced manager would well aware that a project’s NPV is sensitive to the commodity price, the discount rate, operating and capital costs and the production capacity. It was earlier commented by Sorentino and Barnett (1994) that the limita-tion of the usefulness of this method of analysis is because of the method’s simplicity.

This was further explained by Scott (2010) that in practice, project’s variables will not fluctuate one at a time, independently of each other at a specified deviation from the base case. It can-not determine the effects of variations in more than one parameter simultaneously.

Scenario Analysis

Torries (1998) describes scenario analysis as the extension of sensitivity analysis which permits multiple project variables to fluctuate simultaneously to determine the combine effect on the outcome of a project.

Scott (2010), Gamble (2007) and Torries (1998) have discussed on 2 common use of scenario analysis: 1. Determine the best case, worst case scenarios that which are used

to establish the upper bound and lower bound range of possible project outcomes. Establishing the probable range of the project’s outcome identifies the potential magnitude of project uncertainty but reveals no indication of likelihood of occurrence.

2. Used to examine the potential project outcome under the defined ‘what if’ scenario. This type of analysis will provide information regarding the impact of an event but requires subjective judge-ment for establishing the probable occurrence of that event.

3 Situations for the use of ‘what if’ scenarios are as follows: i. Where a variable exerts a substantially large impact on the

outcome of a project and would overpower all other variables examined under probability simulation analysis.

ii. Where there is limited ability to accurately determine the probability distribution for the variable or the probability of occurrence under ‘what if’ scenario.

iii. Where management has limited ability to control the outcome of such an event but requires an assessment of the impact the event would have on the project’s outcome.

In addition, Mun (2004) has mentioned that the inclusion of cor-relation between project’s variables can assist in defining the scenario analysis and help determine critical components of a project’s inter-relationship that sensitivity analysis unable to identify.

Probability Simulation Analysis (Monte Carlo Simulation/ MCS)

Torries (1998) has identified that MCS is capable of extending the individual uncertainties of each variable to determine their combined effect on the outcome of the model. The process involves the estima-tion of the expected value for each variable and assigning a probability distribution representing the uncertainty in that estimation.

Mun (2004) has described that Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) is employed to randomly sample a value from the probability distribu-tions of each variable and combines these values as the inputs for the model to generate a random outcome. The process is repeated many thousands of time to create a probability distribution of the random outcomes from the model.

The underlying principles of MCS are the law of large numbers and the central limit theorem, which state that as the number of simulations approach infinity the generated results will approach an accurate representation of the population. MCS expands the single point estimate of a model into a range of possible outcomes and determines the probability of each outcome occurring.

The probability distribution of generated outcomes for the project can be statistically examined to reveal the expected NPV and risk characteristics of the project. Results from MCS can be used to es-tablish confidence intervals for a defined range of project outcomes including the probability of the project’s exposure to negative returns and upside gains. Apart from that, value at risk can be measured through MCS. The accuracy and reliability of MCS results require the correct modelling of the input variable’s probability and the es-tablishment of any interrelationships amongst the variable.

Gamble (2007) comments that the representative probability distribution for the variable can be determined from historical data or by employing Delphi Method; which uses expert opinions from managers during risk workshops to determine the appropriate prob-ability distribution for key variables in the model.

The interrelationships between the variables must be established and incorporated into the model’s structure or parameters of simula-tion to ensure accurate MCS result is generated. If relationships are not included, random sampling can combine unrealistic combinations of the variables which will compromise the reliability of the results.

Further explanation by Torries (1998) also discusses that Inclusion of uncertainty in the probability distribution of the model’s variables for MCS warrants a reduction in risk-adjusted discount rate employed for the NPV simulation, to avoid the double representation of this risk in the model.

He also explained that in MCS the risk preferences of the deci-sion maker should not be incorporated in the calculation of expected NPV. Instead the probability distribution of possible NPV presents the risk characteristics of the project to the decision maker and their

attitude toward risk will influence the decision to invest in project. If the discount rates are chosen correctly then the expected NPV from MCS adjusted for the risk preferences of the decision maker should equal the expected value from NPV scenario analysis.

However, Gamble (2007) mentions that concerns and limitation of MCS are includes difficulties in performing MCS calculation, difficulties in identifying interrelationships between variables, and difficulties in establishing appropriate probability distributions to assign variables. The problems with MCS also highlighted by Torries (1998) that MCS suffers from the inherent limitations of DCF models, including the determination of the appropriate discount rate and the static and inflexible nature of the valuation. Decision makers are also concerned that MCS does not provide a single metric on which to rank projects for investment. However, he also stated that the prime reason as to why MCS has not been widely accepted amongst decision makers as an absence of familiarity with the technique.

Risk Assessment in Mining Valuation: Alternate Valuation Ap-proaches

The researchers have found several alternative approaches that can be used in determining the value of mining businesses. The methods are adjusted present value (APV), certainty equivalents, real options valuation (ROV) and modern asset pricing (MAP) and their discussions are as follows:

Adjusted Present Value (APV)

This method was originally published by Myers (1974). It is an alternative to the WACC discounting under a DCF valuation frame-work. Represent movement from the use of single “one size fits all” discount rate applied to all the cash flows of an investment, by sepa-rating different streams of cash flows resulting from an investment and discounting them separately.

Luehrman (1997) discusses that Traditional APV separates the valuation of cash flows from business operations, which are discounted at the cost of equity from the CAPM model, from the valuation of cash flows generated from the financial structuring of the business, which are discounted at the cost of debt.

The overall value of the business is determined under the principle of value addictively and is equal to the summation of the present value from the business cash flows and the present value of financial side effects, including tax savings, subsidised debt, credit enhancement and hedging risk.

The greatest strength of APV over WACC discounted NPV is the additional information that APV provides through the separation of cash flows which can be used to identified where the value of an asset is generated.

Scott (2010) strengthens opinions on this method by mention-ing that this method can be used to separate cash flows of mineral project during evaluation. This separating permits each discounting cash flows by discount rate that are more accurately represents the uncertainty present in that cash flow.

Analysis performed under the APV framework will provide greater information regarding the impact of uncertainty and the value of cash flows compared to standard NPV analysis. The separates analysis of a project’s cash flow represents significant contributions toward modern asset pricing methods.

Certainty Equivalents

Torries (1998) has discussed in detailed regarding this method. A certainty equivalent amount represents the value, known with certainty, that an individual or company would be indifferent about swapping in exchange for a particular risky project. Conventional valuations of risky projects focus on the expected value concept, which weights the outcome of an uncertain event by the probability of occurrence to determine the expected value of the project. This approach fails to adequately capture the magnitude of the capital being exposed to the possibility of loss and assumes that the inves-tor exhibits a neutral toward risk which is not right. It is generally accepted that most investors are risk adverse.

Myers (1968) mentions that the degree to which risk aversion im-pact the uncertainty equivalent value is determined by the investor’s utility function of possible outcomes and their risk tolerance. The risk tolerance of a risk-adverse investor is defined as the maximum amount the investor is willing to gamble in a lottery that has even chance of winning that amount of money or loosing half of that amount.

Torries (1998) claims this method can be used to create consistent framework in which investment decisions under uncertainty can e analysed. Certainty equivalent valuation using the equal probabil-ity method can be employed to analyse probabilistic outcome fom simulation analysis to reach an investment decision that includes the risk preferences of the investor. Analysis of risky project’s certainty equivalent values at differing levels of investment can be used to determine the optimal level of investment in the risky business.

Real Options Valuation (ROV)

Leslie and Michaels (1997) have indicated that real option valuation is the extension of financial option pricing methodology to the valuation of real assets. Under the real options framework, an asset may be viewed as containing an embedded option if, for a fixed price, it provides the owner with a right to make a decision to invest, divest, abandon or delay an opportunity that has the potential to realise future payoffs or limit future liabilities without imposing

Page 35: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

3�Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

a R t i K E L

Mun (2004) indicates the advantages by using this method which is: a. They are simple and inexpensive to perform and are easily fa-

cilitated through the modelling of probabilistic simulations. b. Useful in identifying the critical variables to a project’s suc-

cess. c. The identification provides management with direction as to

where limited resources would be best focused to reduce or mitigate uncertainties which have serious consequences on the outcome of a project. However, the only disadvantage of this methods is it provides

little information regarding the risk characteristics of the project but provides no information as to the likelihood of that uncertainty occurring.

Malone et al (2007) further highlighted that the variable as-sess in mineral project includes size of reserves, commodity price, quantity produced, operating costs, capital costs, exchange rates and discount rate.

According to Stirzaker (1997) and West (2006), sensitiv-ity analysis has been criticised for providing no knowledge of the project’s sensitivities. Experienced manager would well aware that a project’s NPV is sensitive to the commodity price, the discount rate, operating and capital costs and the production capacity. It was earlier commented by Sorentino and Barnett (1994) that the limita-tion of the usefulness of this method of analysis is because of the method’s simplicity.

This was further explained by Scott (2010) that in practice, project’s variables will not fluctuate one at a time, independently of each other at a specified deviation from the base case. It can-not determine the effects of variations in more than one parameter simultaneously.

Scenario Analysis

Torries (1998) describes scenario analysis as the extension of sensitivity analysis which permits multiple project variables to fluctuate simultaneously to determine the combine effect on the outcome of a project.

Scott (2010), Gamble (2007) and Torries (1998) have discussed on 2 common use of scenario analysis: 1. Determine the best case, worst case scenarios that which are used

to establish the upper bound and lower bound range of possible project outcomes. Establishing the probable range of the project’s outcome identifies the potential magnitude of project uncertainty but reveals no indication of likelihood of occurrence.

2. Used to examine the potential project outcome under the defined ‘what if’ scenario. This type of analysis will provide information regarding the impact of an event but requires subjective judge-ment for establishing the probable occurrence of that event.

3 Situations for the use of ‘what if’ scenarios are as follows: i. Where a variable exerts a substantially large impact on the

outcome of a project and would overpower all other variables examined under probability simulation analysis.

ii. Where there is limited ability to accurately determine the probability distribution for the variable or the probability of occurrence under ‘what if’ scenario.

iii. Where management has limited ability to control the outcome of such an event but requires an assessment of the impact the event would have on the project’s outcome.

In addition, Mun (2004) has mentioned that the inclusion of cor-relation between project’s variables can assist in defining the scenario analysis and help determine critical components of a project’s inter-relationship that sensitivity analysis unable to identify.

Probability Simulation Analysis (Monte Carlo Simulation/ MCS)

Torries (1998) has identified that MCS is capable of extending the individual uncertainties of each variable to determine their combined effect on the outcome of the model. The process involves the estima-tion of the expected value for each variable and assigning a probability distribution representing the uncertainty in that estimation.

Mun (2004) has described that Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) is employed to randomly sample a value from the probability distribu-tions of each variable and combines these values as the inputs for the model to generate a random outcome. The process is repeated many thousands of time to create a probability distribution of the random outcomes from the model.

The underlying principles of MCS are the law of large numbers and the central limit theorem, which state that as the number of simulations approach infinity the generated results will approach an accurate representation of the population. MCS expands the single point estimate of a model into a range of possible outcomes and determines the probability of each outcome occurring.

The probability distribution of generated outcomes for the project can be statistically examined to reveal the expected NPV and risk characteristics of the project. Results from MCS can be used to es-tablish confidence intervals for a defined range of project outcomes including the probability of the project’s exposure to negative returns and upside gains. Apart from that, value at risk can be measured through MCS. The accuracy and reliability of MCS results require the correct modelling of the input variable’s probability and the es-tablishment of any interrelationships amongst the variable.

Gamble (2007) comments that the representative probability distribution for the variable can be determined from historical data or by employing Delphi Method; which uses expert opinions from managers during risk workshops to determine the appropriate prob-ability distribution for key variables in the model.

The interrelationships between the variables must be established and incorporated into the model’s structure or parameters of simula-tion to ensure accurate MCS result is generated. If relationships are not included, random sampling can combine unrealistic combinations of the variables which will compromise the reliability of the results.

Further explanation by Torries (1998) also discusses that Inclusion of uncertainty in the probability distribution of the model’s variables for MCS warrants a reduction in risk-adjusted discount rate employed for the NPV simulation, to avoid the double representation of this risk in the model.

He also explained that in MCS the risk preferences of the deci-sion maker should not be incorporated in the calculation of expected NPV. Instead the probability distribution of possible NPV presents the risk characteristics of the project to the decision maker and their

attitude toward risk will influence the decision to invest in project. If the discount rates are chosen correctly then the expected NPV from MCS adjusted for the risk preferences of the decision maker should equal the expected value from NPV scenario analysis.

However, Gamble (2007) mentions that concerns and limitation of MCS are includes difficulties in performing MCS calculation, difficulties in identifying interrelationships between variables, and difficulties in establishing appropriate probability distributions to assign variables. The problems with MCS also highlighted by Torries (1998) that MCS suffers from the inherent limitations of DCF models, including the determination of the appropriate discount rate and the static and inflexible nature of the valuation. Decision makers are also concerned that MCS does not provide a single metric on which to rank projects for investment. However, he also stated that the prime reason as to why MCS has not been widely accepted amongst decision makers as an absence of familiarity with the technique.

Risk Assessment in Mining Valuation: Alternate Valuation Ap-proaches

The researchers have found several alternative approaches that can be used in determining the value of mining businesses. The methods are adjusted present value (APV), certainty equivalents, real options valuation (ROV) and modern asset pricing (MAP) and their discussions are as follows:

Adjusted Present Value (APV)

This method was originally published by Myers (1974). It is an alternative to the WACC discounting under a DCF valuation frame-work. Represent movement from the use of single “one size fits all” discount rate applied to all the cash flows of an investment, by sepa-rating different streams of cash flows resulting from an investment and discounting them separately.

Luehrman (1997) discusses that Traditional APV separates the valuation of cash flows from business operations, which are discounted at the cost of equity from the CAPM model, from the valuation of cash flows generated from the financial structuring of the business, which are discounted at the cost of debt.

The overall value of the business is determined under the principle of value addictively and is equal to the summation of the present value from the business cash flows and the present value of financial side effects, including tax savings, subsidised debt, credit enhancement and hedging risk.

The greatest strength of APV over WACC discounted NPV is the additional information that APV provides through the separation of cash flows which can be used to identified where the value of an asset is generated.

Scott (2010) strengthens opinions on this method by mention-ing that this method can be used to separate cash flows of mineral project during evaluation. This separating permits each discounting cash flows by discount rate that are more accurately represents the uncertainty present in that cash flow.

Analysis performed under the APV framework will provide greater information regarding the impact of uncertainty and the value of cash flows compared to standard NPV analysis. The separates analysis of a project’s cash flow represents significant contributions toward modern asset pricing methods.

Certainty Equivalents

Torries (1998) has discussed in detailed regarding this method. A certainty equivalent amount represents the value, known with certainty, that an individual or company would be indifferent about swapping in exchange for a particular risky project. Conventional valuations of risky projects focus on the expected value concept, which weights the outcome of an uncertain event by the probability of occurrence to determine the expected value of the project. This approach fails to adequately capture the magnitude of the capital being exposed to the possibility of loss and assumes that the inves-tor exhibits a neutral toward risk which is not right. It is generally accepted that most investors are risk adverse.

Myers (1968) mentions that the degree to which risk aversion im-pact the uncertainty equivalent value is determined by the investor’s utility function of possible outcomes and their risk tolerance. The risk tolerance of a risk-adverse investor is defined as the maximum amount the investor is willing to gamble in a lottery that has even chance of winning that amount of money or loosing half of that amount.

Torries (1998) claims this method can be used to create consistent framework in which investment decisions under uncertainty can e analysed. Certainty equivalent valuation using the equal probabil-ity method can be employed to analyse probabilistic outcome fom simulation analysis to reach an investment decision that includes the risk preferences of the investor. Analysis of risky project’s certainty equivalent values at differing levels of investment can be used to determine the optimal level of investment in the risky business.

Real Options Valuation (ROV)

Leslie and Michaels (1997) have indicated that real option valuation is the extension of financial option pricing methodology to the valuation of real assets. Under the real options framework, an asset may be viewed as containing an embedded option if, for a fixed price, it provides the owner with a right to make a decision to invest, divest, abandon or delay an opportunity that has the potential to realise future payoffs or limit future liabilities without imposing

Page 36: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

3� Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

a R t i K E L

any obligation to do so. A call option represents the right to buy an asset at the exercise price, while a put option represents the right to sell an asset at the exercise price.

Modern Asset Pricing (MAP)

Real option is included as a form of MAP valuation whereby the policies and strategies of managing the asset are combined towards maximisation of the assets value. MAP differ from DCF valuation since it incorporating the flexibility of future management decisions in the analysis of an assets value and by discounting expected cash flows directly at the source of uncertainty (Laughton, Sagi & Samis, 2000).

Conclusion

Based on the above discussions, it is found that there are several areas of studies that can be highlighted to improve the valuation methodologies of mining/extractive industries. The areas of studies are as follows:

No standardisation or suggestion of valuation methodology to employ in international and countries valuation standards.

In general, every standard has provided suggestions on approach-es and methods to be used in mining valuation. However, there has been limited discussion on what is the best method of valuation for different types of mining operations. This leaves room for improve-ment for the researcher to adapt the valuation methodologies with different implementation of extractive valuation exercise. Suitability of valuation methodologies employ will increase the report credibility and provide accurate valuation.

Traditional valuation methodology, especially DCF lack in ad-dressing risk assessment in mining valuation accurately.

Based on the various scholar opinions, it is found that tradi-tional valuation methodology is not sufficient in assessing the risk in the mining industries. The limitation in DCF implementation was highlighted by most authors, as well as other type of traditional valuation approaches. To date, the improved or alternate valuation methodologies were suggested, not just from the scholars but from the practitioners as well.

Several alternative valuation methodologies were suggested to assess the crucial risk element in mining valuation.

Many valuation methodologies were suggested such as adjusted present value and certain equivalents. However, the gaining popularity of Monte Carlo simulation and real options valuation methodologies has put the valuation of mining industries to the next level, where the simulation or valuation based on actual data assembled is more appreciated. However, the usage of the alternative valuation approach can be confirmed with at least one of traditional approaches, such as cost or direct comparison approach.

The study on the valuation methodologies using alternative approaches should be considered as new paradigm in shifting from old, traditional approaches to more sophisticated, reliable data-based assessment.

REFERENCES Abdel Sabol, SA and Poulin, R, (2006). Valuing Real Capital Invest-

ments using the Least-Squares Monte Carlo method. Engineer-ing Economics. No. 51, pp. 141-160.

Anonymous (2010). Mining Valuation: Three Steps beyond a Static DCF Model. Canadian Mining Journal, Vol. 131, NO, 10, pp. 30.

Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (AUSIMM) (2005). The Valmin Code – 2005 Edition. Extracted from http://aig.org.au/files/valmin_122005.pdf on 4 November 2010 .

Ballard J (1994). A Practitioners View of DCF Methods in Mineral Valuation. Proceedings of VALMIN 94, pages 37-45. Carlton, Australia: The Australasian Insitute of Mining and Metal-lurgy.

Barraquand, J. & Martineau, D. (1995). Numerical Valuation of High Dimensional Multivariate American Securities, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 30, pp. 383-405.

Black, F & Scholes, M (1973). The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities. The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 81, No. 3, pp. 637-654.

Bossaerts, P. (1989). Simulation Estimators of Optical Early Exercise, Working Paper, Cornegie-Mellon University.

Boyle, P.P. (1977). Options: a Monte Carlo Approach. Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 4, pp. 323-338.

Brennan, M. & Schwartz, E. (1977). The Valuation of American Put Options, Journal of Finance, Vol. 32, pp. 449-462.

Broadie, M. & Glasserman, P. (1997). Pricing American-style secu-rities using simulation, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Vol. 21, pp. 1323-1352.

Bruce P F, Clark D E and Bucknell W R (1994). The Company Perspective on Valuation Methods for Exploration Properties. Proceedings of VALMIN 94, pages 199 to 203. Carlton, Aus-tralia: The Australasian Insitute of Mining and Metallurgy.

Copeland, TE and Keenan , PT (1998a). How much is flexibility worth? Mckinsey Q. No. 2, pp. 38-49.

Copeland, TE and Keenan, PT (1998b). Making real options real. Mckinsey Q. No. 3, pp. 128-141.

Dessurault, S, Kazakidis, V N and Mayer, Z (2007). Flexibility valu-ation in operating mine decisions using real options pricing. International Journal of Risk Assessment Management. No.

7, pp. 656-674. Dimitrakopoulus, R (2007). Applied risk assessment for ore reserves

and mine planning, Professional development and short course notes. Melbourne: Australasian Insitute of Mining and Metal-lurgy, pp. 350.

Dixit, A & Pindyck, R (2001). The Options Approach to Capital In-vestment, in Real Options and Investment under Uncertainty: Classical Readings and Recent Contributions, pp. 61-78.

Edwards A (1994). An Accountant’s Overview of Mineral Valuation Methodologies. Proceedings of VALMIN 94, pages 245-255. Carlton, Australia: The Australasian Insitute of Mining and Metallurgy.

Elkington, T, Barret, J and Elkington , J (2006) Practical application of real option concepts to open pit projects. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Seminar on Strategic versus Tactical Approaches in Mining. Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, 8-10 March 2006, pp. S26.1 – S26.12.

Gamble, B (2007). ‘Risk Analysis and Decision Making-A Case Study’, in Project Evaluation Conference, Melbourne, Victoria, pp. 19-31.

Gamba, A. (2002). Real Option Valuation: A Monte Carlo Approach. Working paper: University of Calgary, Canada.

International Valuation Standards Committee (IVSC) (2010). Ex-posure Draft of proposed International Valuation Standards – Extractive Industries. London: IVSC.

Kazakidis, VN and Scobel, M (2003). Planning for flexibility in un-derground mine production system. SME Mineral Engineering Journal, No. 55, pp. 33-38.

Kulatilaka, N. (1995). The Value of Flexibility: a General Model of Real Options, in Real Options in Capital Investment: Models, Strategies and Applications, Lenos Trigeorgis (ed.), Praeger, Westport, pp. 89-107.

Kulatilaka, N. & Trigeorgis, L. (1994). The General Flexibility to Switch: Real Options Revisited, International Journal of Finance, Vol. 6, pp. 778-798.

Lawrence M J (1994). An Overview of Valuation Methods for Ex-ploration Properties. Proceedings of VALMIN 94, pages 205-223. Carlton, Australia: The Australasian Insitute of Mining and Metallurgy.

Lesli, K and Michaels, M (1997). The Real Power of The Real Option. In The McKinsey Quarterly, Vol 1997, No 3, pp. 4-22.

Lonergan W R (1994). The Financial Envelope – the Valuation of Securities after a Technical Evaluation. Proceedings of VAL-MIN 94, pages 225-235. Carlton, Australia: The Australasian Insitute of Mining and Metallurgy.

Longstaff, F.A. & Schwartz, E.S. (2001). Valuing American Options by Simulation: a Simple Least-Squares Approach, The Review of Financial Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 113-147.

Luehrman, T (1995). Capital Projects as Real Options: An Introduc-tion. In Harvard Business School, Vol. 9, pp.1-12.

Malone E J (1994). Historical review of Mineral Valuation Methodol-ogy. Proceedings of VALMIN 94, pages 1-9. Carlton, Australia: The Australasian Insitute of Mining and Metallurgy.

Maybee, Bryan Maxwell (2010). A Risk-Based Evaluation Meth-odology for Underground Mine Planning. Thesis for PhD at

Laurentian University, Ontario, Canada. Myers, S (1968). A time-state-preference model of security valua-

tion. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 3, No. 01, pp. 1 -33.

Mun, J (2004). Applied Risk Analysis. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

O’Connors C and McMahon D (1994). A Producing Miner’s View of DCF Methods in Mineral Valuation. Proceedings of VALMIN 94, pages 75-80. Carlton, Australia: The Australasian Insitute of Mining and Metallurgy.

RICS. (2011) Mineral Bearing land and waste management sites. RICS Guidance Notes GN84/2011.

Runge I C (1994). Uncertainty and Risk in Mineral Valuation – A User’s Perspective. Proceedings of VALMIN 94, pages 119-138. Carlton, Australia: The Australasian Insitute of Mining and Metallurgy.

Sorentino, C (2000). Valuation Methodology for VALMIN. In MICA, The Codes Forum. Sydney: MICA.

Sorentino, C & Barnett, D (1994). ‘Financial Risk and Probability Analysis in Mineral Valuation’. Proceedings Mineral Valuation Methodology 1994 (VALMIN94), pp. 81-101.

Stirzaker, M (1997). ‘Feasibility Studies-Risk and Analysis’. Paper presented to The International Conference on Mine Project Development. Sydney, Australia.

The Appraisal Standards Board of The Appraisal Foundation (2010). Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. United States: Appraisal foundation. Extracted from http://www.uspap.org/2010USPAP/toc.htm on 9 November 2010.

The Special Committee of The Canadian Institute of Mining, Met-allurgy and Petroleum on Valuation of Mineral Properties (CIMVAL) (2003). Standards and Guidelines for valuation of Mineral Properties. Extracted from

http://www.cim.org/committees/cimval_final_standards.pdf on 4 November 2010.

The South African Mineral Asset Valuation (SAMVAL) Working Group (2008). The South African Code for the RePorting of Mineral Asset Valuation (The SAMVAL Code) – 2008 Edition. Extracted from

http://www.samcode.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=63&Itemid=68 on 9 November 2010.

Torries, TF (1998). Evaluating Mineral Projects: Applications and Misconceptions. Society for Mining Metallurgy and explora-tion. Littleton: CO.

West, R (2006). ‘Preliminary, Prefeasibility and Feasibility Studies’, in P Maxwell & P Guj (eds), Australian Mineral Economics: A Survey of Important Issues. Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne, Victoria, pp. 113-128.

Winsen J K (1994). Project NPV as a Portfolio of Derivative Secu-ruties: A Discrete Time Analysis. Proceedings of VALMIN 94, pages 103-117. Carlton, Australia: The Australasian Insitute of Mining and Metallurgy.

Woodhall, M (2002). Managing the mining life cycle: Mineral resource management in the deep level gold mining. Msc. Project research report, submitted to the University of the Witwatersrand.

Page 37: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

3�Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

a R t i K E L

any obligation to do so. A call option represents the right to buy an asset at the exercise price, while a put option represents the right to sell an asset at the exercise price.

Modern Asset Pricing (MAP)

Real option is included as a form of MAP valuation whereby the policies and strategies of managing the asset are combined towards maximisation of the assets value. MAP differ from DCF valuation since it incorporating the flexibility of future management decisions in the analysis of an assets value and by discounting expected cash flows directly at the source of uncertainty (Laughton, Sagi & Samis, 2000).

Conclusion

Based on the above discussions, it is found that there are several areas of studies that can be highlighted to improve the valuation methodologies of mining/extractive industries. The areas of studies are as follows:

No standardisation or suggestion of valuation methodology to employ in international and countries valuation standards.

In general, every standard has provided suggestions on approach-es and methods to be used in mining valuation. However, there has been limited discussion on what is the best method of valuation for different types of mining operations. This leaves room for improve-ment for the researcher to adapt the valuation methodologies with different implementation of extractive valuation exercise. Suitability of valuation methodologies employ will increase the report credibility and provide accurate valuation.

Traditional valuation methodology, especially DCF lack in ad-dressing risk assessment in mining valuation accurately.

Based on the various scholar opinions, it is found that tradi-tional valuation methodology is not sufficient in assessing the risk in the mining industries. The limitation in DCF implementation was highlighted by most authors, as well as other type of traditional valuation approaches. To date, the improved or alternate valuation methodologies were suggested, not just from the scholars but from the practitioners as well.

Several alternative valuation methodologies were suggested to assess the crucial risk element in mining valuation.

Many valuation methodologies were suggested such as adjusted present value and certain equivalents. However, the gaining popularity of Monte Carlo simulation and real options valuation methodologies has put the valuation of mining industries to the next level, where the simulation or valuation based on actual data assembled is more appreciated. However, the usage of the alternative valuation approach can be confirmed with at least one of traditional approaches, such as cost or direct comparison approach.

The study on the valuation methodologies using alternative approaches should be considered as new paradigm in shifting from old, traditional approaches to more sophisticated, reliable data-based assessment.

REFERENCES Abdel Sabol, SA and Poulin, R, (2006). Valuing Real Capital Invest-

ments using the Least-Squares Monte Carlo method. Engineer-ing Economics. No. 51, pp. 141-160.

Anonymous (2010). Mining Valuation: Three Steps beyond a Static DCF Model. Canadian Mining Journal, Vol. 131, NO, 10, pp. 30.

Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (AUSIMM) (2005). The Valmin Code – 2005 Edition. Extracted from http://aig.org.au/files/valmin_122005.pdf on 4 November 2010 .

Ballard J (1994). A Practitioners View of DCF Methods in Mineral Valuation. Proceedings of VALMIN 94, pages 37-45. Carlton, Australia: The Australasian Insitute of Mining and Metal-lurgy.

Barraquand, J. & Martineau, D. (1995). Numerical Valuation of High Dimensional Multivariate American Securities, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 30, pp. 383-405.

Black, F & Scholes, M (1973). The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities. The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 81, No. 3, pp. 637-654.

Bossaerts, P. (1989). Simulation Estimators of Optical Early Exercise, Working Paper, Cornegie-Mellon University.

Boyle, P.P. (1977). Options: a Monte Carlo Approach. Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 4, pp. 323-338.

Brennan, M. & Schwartz, E. (1977). The Valuation of American Put Options, Journal of Finance, Vol. 32, pp. 449-462.

Broadie, M. & Glasserman, P. (1997). Pricing American-style secu-rities using simulation, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Vol. 21, pp. 1323-1352.

Bruce P F, Clark D E and Bucknell W R (1994). The Company Perspective on Valuation Methods for Exploration Properties. Proceedings of VALMIN 94, pages 199 to 203. Carlton, Aus-tralia: The Australasian Insitute of Mining and Metallurgy.

Copeland, TE and Keenan , PT (1998a). How much is flexibility worth? Mckinsey Q. No. 2, pp. 38-49.

Copeland, TE and Keenan, PT (1998b). Making real options real. Mckinsey Q. No. 3, pp. 128-141.

Dessurault, S, Kazakidis, V N and Mayer, Z (2007). Flexibility valu-ation in operating mine decisions using real options pricing. International Journal of Risk Assessment Management. No.

7, pp. 656-674. Dimitrakopoulus, R (2007). Applied risk assessment for ore reserves

and mine planning, Professional development and short course notes. Melbourne: Australasian Insitute of Mining and Metal-lurgy, pp. 350.

Dixit, A & Pindyck, R (2001). The Options Approach to Capital In-vestment, in Real Options and Investment under Uncertainty: Classical Readings and Recent Contributions, pp. 61-78.

Edwards A (1994). An Accountant’s Overview of Mineral Valuation Methodologies. Proceedings of VALMIN 94, pages 245-255. Carlton, Australia: The Australasian Insitute of Mining and Metallurgy.

Elkington, T, Barret, J and Elkington , J (2006) Practical application of real option concepts to open pit projects. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Seminar on Strategic versus Tactical Approaches in Mining. Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, 8-10 March 2006, pp. S26.1 – S26.12.

Gamble, B (2007). ‘Risk Analysis and Decision Making-A Case Study’, in Project Evaluation Conference, Melbourne, Victoria, pp. 19-31.

Gamba, A. (2002). Real Option Valuation: A Monte Carlo Approach. Working paper: University of Calgary, Canada.

International Valuation Standards Committee (IVSC) (2010). Ex-posure Draft of proposed International Valuation Standards – Extractive Industries. London: IVSC.

Kazakidis, VN and Scobel, M (2003). Planning for flexibility in un-derground mine production system. SME Mineral Engineering Journal, No. 55, pp. 33-38.

Kulatilaka, N. (1995). The Value of Flexibility: a General Model of Real Options, in Real Options in Capital Investment: Models, Strategies and Applications, Lenos Trigeorgis (ed.), Praeger, Westport, pp. 89-107.

Kulatilaka, N. & Trigeorgis, L. (1994). The General Flexibility to Switch: Real Options Revisited, International Journal of Finance, Vol. 6, pp. 778-798.

Lawrence M J (1994). An Overview of Valuation Methods for Ex-ploration Properties. Proceedings of VALMIN 94, pages 205-223. Carlton, Australia: The Australasian Insitute of Mining and Metallurgy.

Lesli, K and Michaels, M (1997). The Real Power of The Real Option. In The McKinsey Quarterly, Vol 1997, No 3, pp. 4-22.

Lonergan W R (1994). The Financial Envelope – the Valuation of Securities after a Technical Evaluation. Proceedings of VAL-MIN 94, pages 225-235. Carlton, Australia: The Australasian Insitute of Mining and Metallurgy.

Longstaff, F.A. & Schwartz, E.S. (2001). Valuing American Options by Simulation: a Simple Least-Squares Approach, The Review of Financial Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 113-147.

Luehrman, T (1995). Capital Projects as Real Options: An Introduc-tion. In Harvard Business School, Vol. 9, pp.1-12.

Malone E J (1994). Historical review of Mineral Valuation Methodol-ogy. Proceedings of VALMIN 94, pages 1-9. Carlton, Australia: The Australasian Insitute of Mining and Metallurgy.

Maybee, Bryan Maxwell (2010). A Risk-Based Evaluation Meth-odology for Underground Mine Planning. Thesis for PhD at

Laurentian University, Ontario, Canada. Myers, S (1968). A time-state-preference model of security valua-

tion. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 3, No. 01, pp. 1 -33.

Mun, J (2004). Applied Risk Analysis. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

O’Connors C and McMahon D (1994). A Producing Miner’s View of DCF Methods in Mineral Valuation. Proceedings of VALMIN 94, pages 75-80. Carlton, Australia: The Australasian Insitute of Mining and Metallurgy.

RICS. (2011) Mineral Bearing land and waste management sites. RICS Guidance Notes GN84/2011.

Runge I C (1994). Uncertainty and Risk in Mineral Valuation – A User’s Perspective. Proceedings of VALMIN 94, pages 119-138. Carlton, Australia: The Australasian Insitute of Mining and Metallurgy.

Sorentino, C (2000). Valuation Methodology for VALMIN. In MICA, The Codes Forum. Sydney: MICA.

Sorentino, C & Barnett, D (1994). ‘Financial Risk and Probability Analysis in Mineral Valuation’. Proceedings Mineral Valuation Methodology 1994 (VALMIN94), pp. 81-101.

Stirzaker, M (1997). ‘Feasibility Studies-Risk and Analysis’. Paper presented to The International Conference on Mine Project Development. Sydney, Australia.

The Appraisal Standards Board of The Appraisal Foundation (2010). Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. United States: Appraisal foundation. Extracted from http://www.uspap.org/2010USPAP/toc.htm on 9 November 2010.

The Special Committee of The Canadian Institute of Mining, Met-allurgy and Petroleum on Valuation of Mineral Properties (CIMVAL) (2003). Standards and Guidelines for valuation of Mineral Properties. Extracted from

http://www.cim.org/committees/cimval_final_standards.pdf on 4 November 2010.

The South African Mineral Asset Valuation (SAMVAL) Working Group (2008). The South African Code for the RePorting of Mineral Asset Valuation (The SAMVAL Code) – 2008 Edition. Extracted from

http://www.samcode.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=63&Itemid=68 on 9 November 2010.

Torries, TF (1998). Evaluating Mineral Projects: Applications and Misconceptions. Society for Mining Metallurgy and explora-tion. Littleton: CO.

West, R (2006). ‘Preliminary, Prefeasibility and Feasibility Studies’, in P Maxwell & P Guj (eds), Australian Mineral Economics: A Survey of Important Issues. Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne, Victoria, pp. 113-128.

Winsen J K (1994). Project NPV as a Portfolio of Derivative Secu-ruties: A Discrete Time Analysis. Proceedings of VALMIN 94, pages 103-117. Carlton, Australia: The Australasian Insitute of Mining and Metallurgy.

Woodhall, M (2002). Managing the mining life cycle: Mineral resource management in the deep level gold mining. Msc. Project research report, submitted to the University of the Witwatersrand.

Page 38: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

3� Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

a R t i K E L

1. Provincial Securities Commissions will accept income-based valuations (Discounted Cash Flow) for only proven and probable ore (mining reserves), and for which a detailed pre-fea-sibility or a feasibility study has been prepared.

A Critique of Valuation Methods for Exploration Properties And Undeveloped Mineral Resources

Ian S. Thompson, B.A. (Hons), P. Eng., President

Derry, Michener, Booth & Wahl Consultants Ltd.900-543 Granville StreetVancouver, BC V6C 1X8

ABSTRACT Exploration properties form a continuum from grass roots to

those with favourable geology, geochemical and/or geophysical anomalies, mineralization, showings (prospects), and finally to those with defined mineral deposits. Often properties exhibit a composite of these categories.

The most problematic to value are properties or deposits that are not economically exploitable at the time of the valuation, due to a lack of exploration, insufficient grade or tonnage, poor mining conditions, or the imposition of socioeconomic, environmental, or legal constraints.

Various acceptable methods of valuing the range of all such mineral properties or deposits are reviewed. Some inappropriate

methods are also discussed.

BIOGRAPHY Ian S. Thompson is President and Principal of Derry, Michener,

Booth & Wahl Consultants Ltd. (DMBW), an independent consult-ing practice, specializing in exploration, ore reserve estimations, engineering and valuations of mineral properties.

Mr. Thompson is a graduate in Honours Geological Sciences from the University of Toronto with over 35 years Canadian and Interna-tional experience in mineral exploration and development, including the discovery of base metal. gold and uranium deposits.

DMBW is affiliated with DMBW, Inc. in Colorado, and works with independent engineering and financial groups in North America,

Europe, Australia and Africa. Mr. Thompson is a national member of CIM; the Associations of

Professional Engineers of Ontario and British Columbia; The Geo-logical Association of Canada; The Society of Economic Geologists; The Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada and the BC and Yukon Chamber of Mines.

INTRODUCTION

This paper is presented in response to the request of the Mineral Economics Society of the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metal-lurgy for a Review of Approaches to Valuation of Mineral Properties, as recommended by the TSE/OSC Mining Standards Task Force.

Exploration properties with undeveloped mineral resources range from grassroots acreage without exploration history, to those containing mineralization (or a mineral resource) that is insufficiently explored, to well explored deposits which lack either continuity, or sufficient grade/tonnage, or have poor mineability or metallurgy, such that they are not currently exploitable at the time of the valuation. This does not imply that they do not have value.

For the purpose of valuations, “Fair Market Value” is defined as the highest price agreed upon in terms of cash, or reasonably equivalent to cash, between a willing buyer and a willing seller, both prudent and fully informed, dealing at arms length and under no compulsion to act in an open and unrestricted market, based on the time and conditions (i.e. market, commodity prices, economy, etc.) existing at a specific date.

The objective of the valuator is to use a methodology that removes as much subjectivity as possible and establishes a fair market value, so that ownership of property can be transferred, even if an identifi-able public market may not exist. Criteria for property evaluation are summarized below. (Thompson 1991).

VALUATION METHODS

The Fair Market Value of Exploration Properties and Unde-veloped Mineral Resources can be determined by four general ap-proaches: Geoscience Factor; Cost; Market; or Income. For properties without mineral resources, the income approach is not appropriate and the following approaches are used by the geologist to establish value (Thompson 1991):

Ranked and weighted geological aspects, including proximity to mines, deposits and the significance of the camp and the commod-ity sought. (Geoscience Factor Method) Woodcock (1985), Kilburn (1990, 1998), Goulevitch (1991), M. Lawrence (1994);

Results and costs of historic exploration and the program and cost of future exploration, if warranted (Appraised Value Method) Roscoe (1986), R. Lawrence (1989, 1998), Thompson (1991) and Agnerian (1996a); and

Prior transactions for the property and recent arm’s-length trans-actions for comparable properties, (Market Approach Method or Comparable Transaction) Glanville (1986, 1989, 1990), R. Lawrence (1998), Ward and R. Lawrence (1998).

For exploration properties on which undeveloped mineral re-sources have been identified by drilling, the Income Approach can be the most relevant, i.e.: a forecast of the after-tax cash flow that would accrue from mining the deposit, discounted to the present day and factored by the probability that the deposit (resource) would be put into production if the deposit is not commercially exploitable at the time of valuation.1

A. GEOSCIENCE FACTOR METHOD

An early version of the Geoscience Factor approach, which rated properties by a point system, rather than assigning a dollar value, was developed by Woodcock (1985) to assist the BC Securities Commis-sion (BCSC) in assessing the suitability of an exploration property for public financing.

The Kilburn (1990) Geoscience Factor method, derived partially from Woodcock’s approach, determines a base dollar value per claim to arrive at an overall property value. According to Kilburn: “This geological engineering method is based on four main characteristics of mineral properties, viz.; location; inclusion of valuable mineral-ization; inclusion of geophysical and/or geochemical targets; and inclusion of geological targets. These are subdivided into 19 subcat-egories, which are used to determine the value of the property. The 19 subcategories are prioritized and assigned relative value factors of 1.3 to 10. Value of each mineral claim is determined by applying the appropriate factor to a base value of $400 per 16.2-hectare unit. Property value is calculated by totaling the values of such individual claim units. The value of a property is ultimately influenced by addi-tional, subjective factors to arrive at a fair market value; the expertise of geologists and engineers, commodity markets, financial markets, stock markets, mineral property markets, metal prices and political and economic conditions which vary with time.”

Mike J. Lawrence, a co-presenter in this volume, provided a detailed analysis of the Geoscience Method in his 1994 paper. He commented on its first public use in 1993 and went on to prepare a

Page 39: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

3�Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

a R t i K E L

1. Provincial Securities Commissions will accept income-based valuations (Discounted Cash Flow) for only proven and probable ore (mining reserves), and for which a detailed pre-fea-sibility or a feasibility study has been prepared.

A Critique of Valuation Methods for Exploration Properties And Undeveloped Mineral Resources

Ian S. Thompson, B.A. (Hons), P. Eng., President

Derry, Michener, Booth & Wahl Consultants Ltd.900-543 Granville StreetVancouver, BC V6C 1X8

ABSTRACT Exploration properties form a continuum from grass roots to

those with favourable geology, geochemical and/or geophysical anomalies, mineralization, showings (prospects), and finally to those with defined mineral deposits. Often properties exhibit a composite of these categories.

The most problematic to value are properties or deposits that are not economically exploitable at the time of the valuation, due to a lack of exploration, insufficient grade or tonnage, poor mining conditions, or the imposition of socioeconomic, environmental, or legal constraints.

Various acceptable methods of valuing the range of all such mineral properties or deposits are reviewed. Some inappropriate

methods are also discussed.

BIOGRAPHY Ian S. Thompson is President and Principal of Derry, Michener,

Booth & Wahl Consultants Ltd. (DMBW), an independent consult-ing practice, specializing in exploration, ore reserve estimations, engineering and valuations of mineral properties.

Mr. Thompson is a graduate in Honours Geological Sciences from the University of Toronto with over 35 years Canadian and Interna-tional experience in mineral exploration and development, including the discovery of base metal. gold and uranium deposits.

DMBW is affiliated with DMBW, Inc. in Colorado, and works with independent engineering and financial groups in North America,

Europe, Australia and Africa. Mr. Thompson is a national member of CIM; the Associations of

Professional Engineers of Ontario and British Columbia; The Geo-logical Association of Canada; The Society of Economic Geologists; The Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada and the BC and Yukon Chamber of Mines.

INTRODUCTION

This paper is presented in response to the request of the Mineral Economics Society of the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metal-lurgy for a Review of Approaches to Valuation of Mineral Properties, as recommended by the TSE/OSC Mining Standards Task Force.

Exploration properties with undeveloped mineral resources range from grassroots acreage without exploration history, to those containing mineralization (or a mineral resource) that is insufficiently explored, to well explored deposits which lack either continuity, or sufficient grade/tonnage, or have poor mineability or metallurgy, such that they are not currently exploitable at the time of the valuation. This does not imply that they do not have value.

For the purpose of valuations, “Fair Market Value” is defined as the highest price agreed upon in terms of cash, or reasonably equivalent to cash, between a willing buyer and a willing seller, both prudent and fully informed, dealing at arms length and under no compulsion to act in an open and unrestricted market, based on the time and conditions (i.e. market, commodity prices, economy, etc.) existing at a specific date.

The objective of the valuator is to use a methodology that removes as much subjectivity as possible and establishes a fair market value, so that ownership of property can be transferred, even if an identifi-able public market may not exist. Criteria for property evaluation are summarized below. (Thompson 1991).

VALUATION METHODS

The Fair Market Value of Exploration Properties and Unde-veloped Mineral Resources can be determined by four general ap-proaches: Geoscience Factor; Cost; Market; or Income. For properties without mineral resources, the income approach is not appropriate and the following approaches are used by the geologist to establish value (Thompson 1991):

Ranked and weighted geological aspects, including proximity to mines, deposits and the significance of the camp and the commod-ity sought. (Geoscience Factor Method) Woodcock (1985), Kilburn (1990, 1998), Goulevitch (1991), M. Lawrence (1994);

Results and costs of historic exploration and the program and cost of future exploration, if warranted (Appraised Value Method) Roscoe (1986), R. Lawrence (1989, 1998), Thompson (1991) and Agnerian (1996a); and

Prior transactions for the property and recent arm’s-length trans-actions for comparable properties, (Market Approach Method or Comparable Transaction) Glanville (1986, 1989, 1990), R. Lawrence (1998), Ward and R. Lawrence (1998).

For exploration properties on which undeveloped mineral re-sources have been identified by drilling, the Income Approach can be the most relevant, i.e.: a forecast of the after-tax cash flow that would accrue from mining the deposit, discounted to the present day and factored by the probability that the deposit (resource) would be put into production if the deposit is not commercially exploitable at the time of valuation.1

A. GEOSCIENCE FACTOR METHOD

An early version of the Geoscience Factor approach, which rated properties by a point system, rather than assigning a dollar value, was developed by Woodcock (1985) to assist the BC Securities Commis-sion (BCSC) in assessing the suitability of an exploration property for public financing.

The Kilburn (1990) Geoscience Factor method, derived partially from Woodcock’s approach, determines a base dollar value per claim to arrive at an overall property value. According to Kilburn: “This geological engineering method is based on four main characteristics of mineral properties, viz.; location; inclusion of valuable mineral-ization; inclusion of geophysical and/or geochemical targets; and inclusion of geological targets. These are subdivided into 19 subcat-egories, which are used to determine the value of the property. The 19 subcategories are prioritized and assigned relative value factors of 1.3 to 10. Value of each mineral claim is determined by applying the appropriate factor to a base value of $400 per 16.2-hectare unit. Property value is calculated by totaling the values of such individual claim units. The value of a property is ultimately influenced by addi-tional, subjective factors to arrive at a fair market value; the expertise of geologists and engineers, commodity markets, financial markets, stock markets, mineral property markets, metal prices and political and economic conditions which vary with time.”

Mike J. Lawrence, a co-presenter in this volume, provided a detailed analysis of the Geoscience Method in his 1994 paper. He commented on its first public use in 1993 and went on to prepare a

Page 40: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

�0 Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

a R t i K E L

modified template and propose a slightly different maximum relative weighing, suitable for Australia, as follows: location (22%); volume/tonnage and grade (44%) geophysical/geochemical targets (16%); and favourable geological patterns (18%). He is also philosophically attracted to the systematic nature of methods such as Kilburn (also Goulevitch and Roscoe) but “believes that they are not suitable for use without support by other methods”. Finally he expresses his strong conviction that only experienced geologists can value properties at the Grass Roots or Early Exploration stage and regards site visits as critical to a valuation. He states that “tenement (claim) size alone is no guarantee of value and offers a partial solution that only the relevant prospective portions of the total tenement should be used.” I would also endorse both these opinions.

Kilburn revised and updated his approach in 1998 in response to queries from practitioners. The value of a claim unit was adjusted in 1998 to $450 for any claim unit up to 24 ha (60 acres) to cover the cost of prospecting, before staking, in Western and Northern Canada and elsewhere. Some reviewers have referred to this erroneously as staking costs.

He revised the maximum rating as follows: grade (51%); loca-tion (30%); geophysical/geochemical targets (12%); and geology (7%). Kilburn refers to the process as “Geotechnical Value” which is confusing terminology (i.e. rock mechanics) and I would prefer to stay with Geological Engineering or preferably Geoscience Fac-tor. American authors, Sandri & Abbott (1999) call it a Geoscience Matrix Method and have extended it to industrial minerals, where marketability of the product cannot be assumed, in contrast to most products of the metal mining industry.

The Geoscience Factor Method is classified as a variant on the Cost Approach by Roscoe (1999), a co-presenter, who states that “a major disadvantage of the method is that the degree of dependence of the property value on the assumed basic value of each claim (or area unit). A change in the basic claim value has a proportional effect on both the claim and the property value. In addition, large properties would tend to have very high values and very small properties would tend to have very low values, which may not reflect the real explora-tion potential. These disadvantages make it difficult to recommend the Geoscience Factor Method for valuation of exploration properties and marginal development properties.”

Ross D. Lawrence (1998), also a co-presenter, states that “that is not an elegant approach but it has sometimes been found to be helpful in dealing with certain kinds of exploration properties, or as a test of other methods. It must be carefully applied, claim by claim to a property and so is tedious in the application”.

Goulevitch (1991) in Australia, strongly endorsed Kilburn’s Geo-science Method of justifiable, quantitative valuations of the technical merits of properties and concurs that all five components of value (geology, commodity markets, financial market, stock markets and mining property markets) should be identified separately in a valu-ation. This is a very subjective task and only the first (geology), has been described by any practitioner. Goulevitch notes that in each main characteristic there is no sub-category for the absence of the characteristic. I agree that this modification would be helpful.

In my experience I would only carry out the Geoscience Method as a test of other methods, or as a relative property ranking mecha-

nism and do not necessarily feel obliged to carry it out in all studies. Rather than measuring on a claim by claim basis I customarily assign value rankings for different parts of claim groups, ranging from basic staking (or basic acquisition) cost to high values depending upon exploration prospectivity. This is in turn related to the next warranted logical exploration program.

In conclusion, the Geoscience Factor Method is a method wherein a geologist tries to convert subjective scientific opinions into a nu-meric engineering system, and as the VALMIN CODE (1998) states; “this method should not be used in isolation from other methods”.

B. APPRAISED VALUE METHOD

The Appraised Value method has been described in papers by Agnerian (1996a), R. Lawrence (1989, 1998), Roscoe (1986, 1988, 1999), and Thompson (1991).

Roscoe (1999) describes the method as a cost approach to valu-ation and a basic tenet that an exploration property is worth “mean-ingful past exploration expenditures plus warranted future costs”. The latter represent a reasonable budget to advance the property to the next decision stage as determined by a prudent and responsible explorationist, i.e. a seasoned exploration geologist.

The appraised value may have to be adjusted to market value if the local market for properties is elevated or depressed.

In this method a property is deemed to be worth what has been spent on it, with a premium, if results are positive, or a discount, if results are poor. Sometimes costs are adjusted for inflation, although, if applied indiscriminately to old costs, this can result in an overly large value bonus for inflation. Replacement costs to carry out the relevant work may be more appropriate in some cases.

R. Lawrence (1989, 1998) and Agnerian (1996) restrict the ac-cumulation of such expenditures to the past three or four years, rather than to all historic costs, with the accumulation basis ranging from 100% for positive results, to 25% for negative results but with some exploration potential, to 0-10% with little or no potential.

Derry, Michener, Booth & Wahl (Thompson 1991, 1992) devel-oped a standardized cost per claim method, which is applicable for large property holdings of mining companies. This is based upon the cost of conducting exploration on a current standard contract basis, which accounts for the effects of inflation. The purpose is to provide a standard basis for valuing historical work on large property posi-tions where there is a wide range in historic costs for similar work completed. Costs, particularly for diamond drilling, are then factored for significance; e.g. if 24 holes have been drilled to test several tar-gets on a property and only eight of these on two targets intersected mineralization worth following, up then credit is given for only eight holes. Some allowance may also be made for drilling which provides useful geological data aiding target selection.

M.J. Lawrence (1994) refers to the appraised value method as a “Multiple of Exploration Method (MEE) which involves allocation of a premium or discount to the relevant and effective Expenditure Base (represented by the past and future expenditure) through the use of the Prospectivity Enhancement Multiplier (PEM), a factor directly related to the success (or failure) of the exploration completed to date and to an assessment of the future prospects of the tenement(s). The selected PEM would usually range from 0.5 to 3.0, but it could be

as low as zero or as high as 5”. The Expenditure Base includes only the current owner’s/joint

venturer’s relevant past expenditures plus any firmly committed future expenditures (normally only for one budget year in advance) but sometimes for two field campaigns. Past costs include acquisi-tion costs and relevant previous data including that which is not in the public domain. In his opinion the valuation can only be done by an exploration geologist.

In essence, the MEE is the Appraised Value but with the addition of subjective PEM. If the value is large, say, $1-5 million, then the selection of the appropriate multiplier is critical to the success and acceptability of this method. I have not often seen this multiplier method in use in Canada. Presumably one would need a well-de-veloped data or experience base (as Lawrence would have for his Australian valuations). The subjectivity involved is akin to that in a Geoscience Factor.

Another method, “Multiple of Past Expenditure” was used successfully by Anderson & Schwab/RobSearch Australia for their estimate of the realizable (market) value of grassroots and other dia-mond exploration properties with prospectivity, but without defined resources. Only past costs were taken as the base. This was done for the Ashton Mining takeover offer of Australian Diamond Exploration (Adex) in late 1996. The multiples ranged from 0.5 to 3.0 with zero representing a complete write-off and values greater than 1 applying where exploration had successfully upgraded the property.

C. MARKET APPROACH METHOD (COMPARABLE TRANSACTION)

The Market Approach Method has been described by Glanville (1986, 1989, and 1990), R. Lawrence (1998), Thompson (1991), Ward & R. Lawrence (1998).

If a property in the recent past was the subject of an arms-length transaction, for either cash or shares (i.e.: from a company whose principal asset was the mineral property) then this forms the most realistic starting point, provided that the deal is still relevant in today’s market.

Complicating matters is the knowledge that properties rarely change hands for cash, except for liquidation purposes, estate sales, or as raw exploration property when sold by an individual prospec-

tor, or entrepreneur. Properties can be also valued on the earn-in approach, based on

actual deals and commitments (arms-length) for future exploration expenditures, or by analogy with deals on adjacent properties within a general district, or properties of that type elsewhere. In these cir-cumstances vesting is an important consideration because many deals are “all or nothing”; hence, the proposed exploration expenditures would then have to be factored by the probability of the company making all or part of those expenditures.

The resultant earn-in value is a function of past costs, results and the extent of the future program, and can be compared directly to the Appraised Value Method. It is a useful technique because it is a real-world exploration approach and is the manner in which most exploration properties are explored beyond the initial stage of data acquisition.

Any underlying royalty or net profits interests or rights held by the original vendor of the claims should be deducted from the resul-tant property value before determination of the company’s interest. Also, reductions in value should be made where environmental, legal or political sensitivities could seriously retard the development of exploration properties (e.g. Montana or Labrador).

It should be noted again that exploration is cyclical, and in periods of low metal prices there is often no market, or a market at very low prices, for ordinary exploration acreage (inventory property) unless it is combined with a significant mineral deposit, or with other incentives. This malaise has unfortunately persisted since the Bre-X fraud in late March 1997 with few current transactions (mostly for low values). Truly Comparable Transactions are rare at present for early stage properties without defined drill targets for showings. This is natural in a recession, as companies focus “close to the headframe”. I agree with Ward & Lawrence (1998) that inflated prices paid for property in fashionable areas should not be discounted because they reflect the true market value of a property at the transaction date. If however, the bloom is off that local market then adjustments must be made.

As an example of the difficulty using the Comparable Transaction approach, in a mid-1999 valuation of a portfolio of gold properties in the Caribbean, I reviewed about 60 deals in the Caribbean, Mexico and Central America that took place over a two year period. Only five were found to be suitable, and these resulted in a wide value range of $650,000 to $4,900,000. Transactions in the larger South American countries such as Chile, Peru, Argentina and Brazil could not be used as they reflected more fashionable locations, a much larger/richer mineral potential, or a more advanced exploration stage. This market valuation was compared to a valuation worked out in detail by the Appraised Value Method, with the latter given more weighting in the selection of the final valuation range.

D. INCOME (DCF) METHOD

In addition to standard DCF methods noted earlier, the following technique has been used successfully.

Option Pricing Glanville (1990) and Roscoe (1998) have described this method

for exploration properties and undeveloped mineral resources. The property is considered as an option and as such has a positive value, even if it is currently uneconomic. Some options are:

Page 41: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

��Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

a R t i K E L

modified template and propose a slightly different maximum relative weighing, suitable for Australia, as follows: location (22%); volume/tonnage and grade (44%) geophysical/geochemical targets (16%); and favourable geological patterns (18%). He is also philosophically attracted to the systematic nature of methods such as Kilburn (also Goulevitch and Roscoe) but “believes that they are not suitable for use without support by other methods”. Finally he expresses his strong conviction that only experienced geologists can value properties at the Grass Roots or Early Exploration stage and regards site visits as critical to a valuation. He states that “tenement (claim) size alone is no guarantee of value and offers a partial solution that only the relevant prospective portions of the total tenement should be used.” I would also endorse both these opinions.

Kilburn revised and updated his approach in 1998 in response to queries from practitioners. The value of a claim unit was adjusted in 1998 to $450 for any claim unit up to 24 ha (60 acres) to cover the cost of prospecting, before staking, in Western and Northern Canada and elsewhere. Some reviewers have referred to this erroneously as staking costs.

He revised the maximum rating as follows: grade (51%); loca-tion (30%); geophysical/geochemical targets (12%); and geology (7%). Kilburn refers to the process as “Geotechnical Value” which is confusing terminology (i.e. rock mechanics) and I would prefer to stay with Geological Engineering or preferably Geoscience Fac-tor. American authors, Sandri & Abbott (1999) call it a Geoscience Matrix Method and have extended it to industrial minerals, where marketability of the product cannot be assumed, in contrast to most products of the metal mining industry.

The Geoscience Factor Method is classified as a variant on the Cost Approach by Roscoe (1999), a co-presenter, who states that “a major disadvantage of the method is that the degree of dependence of the property value on the assumed basic value of each claim (or area unit). A change in the basic claim value has a proportional effect on both the claim and the property value. In addition, large properties would tend to have very high values and very small properties would tend to have very low values, which may not reflect the real explora-tion potential. These disadvantages make it difficult to recommend the Geoscience Factor Method for valuation of exploration properties and marginal development properties.”

Ross D. Lawrence (1998), also a co-presenter, states that “that is not an elegant approach but it has sometimes been found to be helpful in dealing with certain kinds of exploration properties, or as a test of other methods. It must be carefully applied, claim by claim to a property and so is tedious in the application”.

Goulevitch (1991) in Australia, strongly endorsed Kilburn’s Geo-science Method of justifiable, quantitative valuations of the technical merits of properties and concurs that all five components of value (geology, commodity markets, financial market, stock markets and mining property markets) should be identified separately in a valu-ation. This is a very subjective task and only the first (geology), has been described by any practitioner. Goulevitch notes that in each main characteristic there is no sub-category for the absence of the characteristic. I agree that this modification would be helpful.

In my experience I would only carry out the Geoscience Method as a test of other methods, or as a relative property ranking mecha-

nism and do not necessarily feel obliged to carry it out in all studies. Rather than measuring on a claim by claim basis I customarily assign value rankings for different parts of claim groups, ranging from basic staking (or basic acquisition) cost to high values depending upon exploration prospectivity. This is in turn related to the next warranted logical exploration program.

In conclusion, the Geoscience Factor Method is a method wherein a geologist tries to convert subjective scientific opinions into a nu-meric engineering system, and as the VALMIN CODE (1998) states; “this method should not be used in isolation from other methods”.

B. APPRAISED VALUE METHOD

The Appraised Value method has been described in papers by Agnerian (1996a), R. Lawrence (1989, 1998), Roscoe (1986, 1988, 1999), and Thompson (1991).

Roscoe (1999) describes the method as a cost approach to valu-ation and a basic tenet that an exploration property is worth “mean-ingful past exploration expenditures plus warranted future costs”. The latter represent a reasonable budget to advance the property to the next decision stage as determined by a prudent and responsible explorationist, i.e. a seasoned exploration geologist.

The appraised value may have to be adjusted to market value if the local market for properties is elevated or depressed.

In this method a property is deemed to be worth what has been spent on it, with a premium, if results are positive, or a discount, if results are poor. Sometimes costs are adjusted for inflation, although, if applied indiscriminately to old costs, this can result in an overly large value bonus for inflation. Replacement costs to carry out the relevant work may be more appropriate in some cases.

R. Lawrence (1989, 1998) and Agnerian (1996) restrict the ac-cumulation of such expenditures to the past three or four years, rather than to all historic costs, with the accumulation basis ranging from 100% for positive results, to 25% for negative results but with some exploration potential, to 0-10% with little or no potential.

Derry, Michener, Booth & Wahl (Thompson 1991, 1992) devel-oped a standardized cost per claim method, which is applicable for large property holdings of mining companies. This is based upon the cost of conducting exploration on a current standard contract basis, which accounts for the effects of inflation. The purpose is to provide a standard basis for valuing historical work on large property posi-tions where there is a wide range in historic costs for similar work completed. Costs, particularly for diamond drilling, are then factored for significance; e.g. if 24 holes have been drilled to test several tar-gets on a property and only eight of these on two targets intersected mineralization worth following, up then credit is given for only eight holes. Some allowance may also be made for drilling which provides useful geological data aiding target selection.

M.J. Lawrence (1994) refers to the appraised value method as a “Multiple of Exploration Method (MEE) which involves allocation of a premium or discount to the relevant and effective Expenditure Base (represented by the past and future expenditure) through the use of the Prospectivity Enhancement Multiplier (PEM), a factor directly related to the success (or failure) of the exploration completed to date and to an assessment of the future prospects of the tenement(s). The selected PEM would usually range from 0.5 to 3.0, but it could be

as low as zero or as high as 5”. The Expenditure Base includes only the current owner’s/joint

venturer’s relevant past expenditures plus any firmly committed future expenditures (normally only for one budget year in advance) but sometimes for two field campaigns. Past costs include acquisi-tion costs and relevant previous data including that which is not in the public domain. In his opinion the valuation can only be done by an exploration geologist.

In essence, the MEE is the Appraised Value but with the addition of subjective PEM. If the value is large, say, $1-5 million, then the selection of the appropriate multiplier is critical to the success and acceptability of this method. I have not often seen this multiplier method in use in Canada. Presumably one would need a well-de-veloped data or experience base (as Lawrence would have for his Australian valuations). The subjectivity involved is akin to that in a Geoscience Factor.

Another method, “Multiple of Past Expenditure” was used successfully by Anderson & Schwab/RobSearch Australia for their estimate of the realizable (market) value of grassroots and other dia-mond exploration properties with prospectivity, but without defined resources. Only past costs were taken as the base. This was done for the Ashton Mining takeover offer of Australian Diamond Exploration (Adex) in late 1996. The multiples ranged from 0.5 to 3.0 with zero representing a complete write-off and values greater than 1 applying where exploration had successfully upgraded the property.

C. MARKET APPROACH METHOD (COMPARABLE TRANSACTION)

The Market Approach Method has been described by Glanville (1986, 1989, and 1990), R. Lawrence (1998), Thompson (1991), Ward & R. Lawrence (1998).

If a property in the recent past was the subject of an arms-length transaction, for either cash or shares (i.e.: from a company whose principal asset was the mineral property) then this forms the most realistic starting point, provided that the deal is still relevant in today’s market.

Complicating matters is the knowledge that properties rarely change hands for cash, except for liquidation purposes, estate sales, or as raw exploration property when sold by an individual prospec-

tor, or entrepreneur. Properties can be also valued on the earn-in approach, based on

actual deals and commitments (arms-length) for future exploration expenditures, or by analogy with deals on adjacent properties within a general district, or properties of that type elsewhere. In these cir-cumstances vesting is an important consideration because many deals are “all or nothing”; hence, the proposed exploration expenditures would then have to be factored by the probability of the company making all or part of those expenditures.

The resultant earn-in value is a function of past costs, results and the extent of the future program, and can be compared directly to the Appraised Value Method. It is a useful technique because it is a real-world exploration approach and is the manner in which most exploration properties are explored beyond the initial stage of data acquisition.

Any underlying royalty or net profits interests or rights held by the original vendor of the claims should be deducted from the resul-tant property value before determination of the company’s interest. Also, reductions in value should be made where environmental, legal or political sensitivities could seriously retard the development of exploration properties (e.g. Montana or Labrador).

It should be noted again that exploration is cyclical, and in periods of low metal prices there is often no market, or a market at very low prices, for ordinary exploration acreage (inventory property) unless it is combined with a significant mineral deposit, or with other incentives. This malaise has unfortunately persisted since the Bre-X fraud in late March 1997 with few current transactions (mostly for low values). Truly Comparable Transactions are rare at present for early stage properties without defined drill targets for showings. This is natural in a recession, as companies focus “close to the headframe”. I agree with Ward & Lawrence (1998) that inflated prices paid for property in fashionable areas should not be discounted because they reflect the true market value of a property at the transaction date. If however, the bloom is off that local market then adjustments must be made.

As an example of the difficulty using the Comparable Transaction approach, in a mid-1999 valuation of a portfolio of gold properties in the Caribbean, I reviewed about 60 deals in the Caribbean, Mexico and Central America that took place over a two year period. Only five were found to be suitable, and these resulted in a wide value range of $650,000 to $4,900,000. Transactions in the larger South American countries such as Chile, Peru, Argentina and Brazil could not be used as they reflected more fashionable locations, a much larger/richer mineral potential, or a more advanced exploration stage. This market valuation was compared to a valuation worked out in detail by the Appraised Value Method, with the latter given more weighting in the selection of the final valuation range.

D. INCOME (DCF) METHOD

In addition to standard DCF methods noted earlier, the following technique has been used successfully.

Option Pricing Glanville (1990) and Roscoe (1998) have described this method

for exploration properties and undeveloped mineral resources. The property is considered as an option and as such has a positive value, even if it is currently uneconomic. Some options are:

Page 42: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

�2 Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

a R t i K E L

-Explore, hold, or drop property -Option to sell or lease-Option to put into production (rare)One part of this was discussed in the Farm-in (Commitment) Ap-

proach of Market Methods wherein the proposed exploration terms have to be factored by the probability of the farm-in company making all of the expenditures. This is a variation of the discounted cash flow technique for the marginal (undeveloped) development properties, which in the real world are transferred for significant consideration, even although standard DCF techniques show low or negative values. It is an extremely useful technique in my opinion.

Another option variation is the sale of property by means of an advance NSR or tonnage royalty. The present value of the assumed royalty stream, factored by the probability of occurrence, will be the value of an inactive property with an undeveloped resource. It is not necessary to demonstrate economic viability in this case but one must assume a royalty stream life.

E. OTHER METHODS 1. Statistical or Probabilistic/Conceptual Ore Body Method is

based on a statistical analysis of the average value of an economic deposit (mine), the chance of discoveries becoming economic and of anomalies (drill targets) becoming discoveries. MacKenzie (1987) published extensive statistical data on the expected cost of finding a deposit for the period 1977-1984 and the average return for an economic deposit (both on a discounted after-tax basis). The expected cost of finding a gold deposit was found to be $36 million and the average return was estimated at $55 million.

This method requires the valuer to determine the probability of a mineral occurrence becoming a mineral deposit expressed as a ratio between the cost of finding an occurrence and the expected cost of finding an economic deposit. While MacKenzie’s data are based on actual expenditures and measurable returns, the cost of finding an occurrence must be evaluated by geological criteria, and may be a highly subjective amount. Accordingly the Probabilistic Method can be regarded, particularly for proper-ties in the early drilling stage, without quantifiable resources, as a combination of the Geoscience Factor and Appraised Value Methods. It might be valid for a large portfolio of properties in the same camp with similar targets.

Decision Tree Analysis In an application of the Appraised Value (Cost) Method, R.D.

Lawrence (1998) has also developed a “Decision Tree Analysis”. The value is arrived at by considering first the annual costs that might be required to successfully explore the property and estab-lish the existence of an orebody. In the example chosen, large, medium and small orebodies are given nominal values of $500 million, $50 million and $5 million, respectively. Using a five-year time frame with annual budgets starting at $1 million, and rising to $5 million, probabilities are assigned to the outcome of each annual budget, i.e. find targets (p = 0.70), or withdraw (p = 0.30); find ore (p = 0.70) or withdraw (p = 0.30), and in the last year find a large deposit (P = 0.10), medium deposit (p = 0.20) or a small deposit (p = 0.70). The cumulative probability over the period adds up to 1.00.

He states that, “by experimenting with various probability factors

for a given property, one can determine a range of values over a spectrum from optimistic to pessimistic”. While the Decision Tree is mathematically attractive it is a theoretical and highly subjective Probabilistic option method and prone to “financial engineering”.

I have rarely attempted this method and only as a check on other methods. I do not consider Probabilistic/Conceptual ore body methods as appropriate and agree with M. Lawrence (1994) “that their lack of transparency means that they are variations on the “Trust Me – I’m a Valuer” (lump sum estimate) approach.

2. Committed Future Expenditure by Optionor is a variation of the Appraised Value Method in which no value is assigned for past exploration costs and all value is based on committed future expenditures. This approach is probably most useful for “grassroots” properties (or land bank) with limited previous work; their intrinsic value would be based largely on the exploration program that a prudent explorationist would recommend and to which a company would be prepared to commit.

On more advanced properties, but still without quantifiable re-sources, assigning no value for past expenditures may be unduly harsh.

3. Rule Of Thumb Methods Net In Situ Value

For more advanced properties with undeveloped resources, value is expressed as value/unit of metal in the ground (commonly gold but also copper) or as a value/ton of resource. This approach is extremely arbitrary since for each property the unit value is de-pendent on the site-specific relationship between grade, recovery, metal prices and costs.

Commonly unit values are market derived, based on transac-tions involving deposits with reserves, often in production and arbitrarily factored downward to account for the valuer’s/user’s assessment of uncertainty of ore, grade, etc.

Loucks and Dempsey (1997) quoted a range of gold values/in situ ounce, illustrating that mining projects are worth more as invest-ment risk is reduced at successive stages of development. For example the value per in situ oz. rises from exploration projects (US $7/oz.) to prefeasibility stage projects (US $15/oz.) feasibility

stage projects (US $30/oz.) and producing mines (US $150/oz.) These yardsticks are familiar to all of us but they should never by used as a primary value method for exploration properties with undeveloped resources. Gross In Situ Value

Parrish & Mullen (1998) surveyed about 40 worldwide trans-actions involving major copper, gold and zinc-lead properties with stated resources (including reserves) over the period 1993 – 1998. The price range was, as expected, wide for gold (or gold equivalent) at US $6/oz to US $227/oz. For copper the range was tighter at <1¢ to 7¢/lb of in situ copper (or equivalent copper). Base metal properties were traded in an even tighter range from 0.5¢ to 1.1¢/lb of in situ zinc. Canadian examples were the zinc-lead deposits at Grevet (Quebec) and Midway (YT) in 1996 at 0.5¢/lb and 0.7¢/lb, respectively, Izok Lake (NWT) at 0.7¢/lb copper; Doyon (Quebec) in 1998 at $64/oz and Snip (BC) in 1996 at $277/oz (an outlier).

Contrast these to Bajo de la Alumbrera (Argentina) in 1995 at 6¢/lb, Porgera (PNG) in 1996 at $80/oz and Antamina (Peru) in 1996 at 4.8¢/lb.

When transactions were studied on the basis of purchase price as a proportion of gross in situ value the range was somewhat similar, ranging from <1% to 7% for copper and from 2% to 58% for gold properties.

At best, these senior mining comp any examples can be only used as crude numbers to which more junior exploration properties may or may not be compared. Gross in situ value is generally not an appropriate valuation technique for early stage explora-tion properties, although it gives a rough estimate of value for advanced projects with substantial resources. $/Unit Area or $/Property

Ward & Lawrence (1998) have made comparisons on the basis of “dollars per unit area of favourable ground” (emphasis on favourable) for properties without reserves or commodities other than gold. Two interesting observations, which I can confirm from my own experience, are that: (1) larger properties have a lower unit value/hectare than smaller ones and (2) in a hot area most properties will sell at similar prices, irrespective of size, or even exploration prospectivity.

Also in Roscoe (1988) the Market comparables are better ex-pressed as a range of the total purchase price per property. In a survey, 50% of 445 transactions for gold properties in 1995 and 1996 lay between $100,000 to $1 million; 27% were less than $100,000 and 23% were greater than $1 million.

4. Market Capitalization. The value of an exploration property can, rarely, be determined by market capitalization of a (junior) company if its sole asset is that property, or a collection of similar exploration properties, or if the property is adjacent to one with an identifiable public market value. For thinly traded stocks the price of share transactions on any particular day are not indicative of the price for which the entire company could be sold. Furthermore the trading price of a junior mining company is affected by many factors, often having little relationship to the fair market value of the company’s properties. This can be misleading particularly, if the public company holds only a minority interest in the property.

For these reasons market cap generally is an inappropriate valu-ation method. However, if there is substantial trading volume, this method may provide an indication of value.

5. Miscellaneous. There are two other techniques that have been attempted in the past to value exploration properties: Book Value from Financial Statements and Replacement Cost. Neither of these is applicable to exploration properties.

Book Value is often used as the basis for negotiating farm outs since most companies capitalize exploration costs until a devel-opment or abandonment decision is reached. As noted there is often no relationship between cost and value. (However, see new proposed CDN-X policy.)

Replacement Value is the capital replacement costs of mine, mill and infrastructure for producers and former producers and does not usually apply to exploration properties. Sometimes the current cost of reproducing relevant exploration data such as geochemi-cal and geophysical surveys, drilling and assaying or exploration openings is considered under the Appraised Value Method.

Replacement value is often confused with salvage, or disposal value that for exploration properties can be quite low or nil.

F. COMMENTS FROM REGULATORS Redwick & Stevenson (1992) of the BCSC did not approve the

application of a premium to past costs. They would prefer the valua-tor to use a different method to value what they called “spectacular” exploration properties. The BCSC accepts the Comparable Properties Method, but with many reservations, however they generally do not accept the Probabilistic Method or the Geoscience Factor Method since their subjective nature contravenes established policy. Some-times they accept the Metal in Situ Method, but only as a check on other methods.

The VSE policy (Oddy 1995) was that valuations based on Ap-praised Value, or Geoscience Factor or the Conceptual Ore Body (Probabilistic) Method are generally not acceptable. Valuations based on a Premium or Discount on costs, or Comparable Transac-tions, or Value of Metal in Situ, or on Option Terms, appeared to be the most useful in support of the issuance of a significant number of free trading shares, as a portion of the consideration for resource property acquisitions.

A recent Vancouver Stock Exchange (VSE) opinion (K. Karchmar 1999) is that “prior expenditures must be judged on their value to the purchaser” and that, “in most cases the VSE does not consider proposed future expenditures to be a valid basis for establishing Fair Market Value”. I agree with the first comment, but not the second. A proposed policy for the new Canadian Venture Exchange (CDNX) is currently in the discussion stage.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The process of valuation of exploration properties and undevel-oped mineral resources is one where the experience and impartiality of the geologist are critical. It is important that value be examined from several viewpoints, as the fair market value so determined will be a notional rather than a real value. The Market Approach and Appraised Value methods, in my opinion, are the most defensible of the methods.

Page 43: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

�3Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

a R t i K E L

-Explore, hold, or drop property -Option to sell or lease-Option to put into production (rare)One part of this was discussed in the Farm-in (Commitment) Ap-

proach of Market Methods wherein the proposed exploration terms have to be factored by the probability of the farm-in company making all of the expenditures. This is a variation of the discounted cash flow technique for the marginal (undeveloped) development properties, which in the real world are transferred for significant consideration, even although standard DCF techniques show low or negative values. It is an extremely useful technique in my opinion.

Another option variation is the sale of property by means of an advance NSR or tonnage royalty. The present value of the assumed royalty stream, factored by the probability of occurrence, will be the value of an inactive property with an undeveloped resource. It is not necessary to demonstrate economic viability in this case but one must assume a royalty stream life.

E. OTHER METHODS 1. Statistical or Probabilistic/Conceptual Ore Body Method is

based on a statistical analysis of the average value of an economic deposit (mine), the chance of discoveries becoming economic and of anomalies (drill targets) becoming discoveries. MacKenzie (1987) published extensive statistical data on the expected cost of finding a deposit for the period 1977-1984 and the average return for an economic deposit (both on a discounted after-tax basis). The expected cost of finding a gold deposit was found to be $36 million and the average return was estimated at $55 million.

This method requires the valuer to determine the probability of a mineral occurrence becoming a mineral deposit expressed as a ratio between the cost of finding an occurrence and the expected cost of finding an economic deposit. While MacKenzie’s data are based on actual expenditures and measurable returns, the cost of finding an occurrence must be evaluated by geological criteria, and may be a highly subjective amount. Accordingly the Probabilistic Method can be regarded, particularly for proper-ties in the early drilling stage, without quantifiable resources, as a combination of the Geoscience Factor and Appraised Value Methods. It might be valid for a large portfolio of properties in the same camp with similar targets.

Decision Tree Analysis In an application of the Appraised Value (Cost) Method, R.D.

Lawrence (1998) has also developed a “Decision Tree Analysis”. The value is arrived at by considering first the annual costs that might be required to successfully explore the property and estab-lish the existence of an orebody. In the example chosen, large, medium and small orebodies are given nominal values of $500 million, $50 million and $5 million, respectively. Using a five-year time frame with annual budgets starting at $1 million, and rising to $5 million, probabilities are assigned to the outcome of each annual budget, i.e. find targets (p = 0.70), or withdraw (p = 0.30); find ore (p = 0.70) or withdraw (p = 0.30), and in the last year find a large deposit (P = 0.10), medium deposit (p = 0.20) or a small deposit (p = 0.70). The cumulative probability over the period adds up to 1.00.

He states that, “by experimenting with various probability factors

for a given property, one can determine a range of values over a spectrum from optimistic to pessimistic”. While the Decision Tree is mathematically attractive it is a theoretical and highly subjective Probabilistic option method and prone to “financial engineering”.

I have rarely attempted this method and only as a check on other methods. I do not consider Probabilistic/Conceptual ore body methods as appropriate and agree with M. Lawrence (1994) “that their lack of transparency means that they are variations on the “Trust Me – I’m a Valuer” (lump sum estimate) approach.

2. Committed Future Expenditure by Optionor is a variation of the Appraised Value Method in which no value is assigned for past exploration costs and all value is based on committed future expenditures. This approach is probably most useful for “grassroots” properties (or land bank) with limited previous work; their intrinsic value would be based largely on the exploration program that a prudent explorationist would recommend and to which a company would be prepared to commit.

On more advanced properties, but still without quantifiable re-sources, assigning no value for past expenditures may be unduly harsh.

3. Rule Of Thumb Methods Net In Situ Value

For more advanced properties with undeveloped resources, value is expressed as value/unit of metal in the ground (commonly gold but also copper) or as a value/ton of resource. This approach is extremely arbitrary since for each property the unit value is de-pendent on the site-specific relationship between grade, recovery, metal prices and costs.

Commonly unit values are market derived, based on transac-tions involving deposits with reserves, often in production and arbitrarily factored downward to account for the valuer’s/user’s assessment of uncertainty of ore, grade, etc.

Loucks and Dempsey (1997) quoted a range of gold values/in situ ounce, illustrating that mining projects are worth more as invest-ment risk is reduced at successive stages of development. For example the value per in situ oz. rises from exploration projects (US $7/oz.) to prefeasibility stage projects (US $15/oz.) feasibility

stage projects (US $30/oz.) and producing mines (US $150/oz.) These yardsticks are familiar to all of us but they should never by used as a primary value method for exploration properties with undeveloped resources. Gross In Situ Value

Parrish & Mullen (1998) surveyed about 40 worldwide trans-actions involving major copper, gold and zinc-lead properties with stated resources (including reserves) over the period 1993 – 1998. The price range was, as expected, wide for gold (or gold equivalent) at US $6/oz to US $227/oz. For copper the range was tighter at <1¢ to 7¢/lb of in situ copper (or equivalent copper). Base metal properties were traded in an even tighter range from 0.5¢ to 1.1¢/lb of in situ zinc. Canadian examples were the zinc-lead deposits at Grevet (Quebec) and Midway (YT) in 1996 at 0.5¢/lb and 0.7¢/lb, respectively, Izok Lake (NWT) at 0.7¢/lb copper; Doyon (Quebec) in 1998 at $64/oz and Snip (BC) in 1996 at $277/oz (an outlier).

Contrast these to Bajo de la Alumbrera (Argentina) in 1995 at 6¢/lb, Porgera (PNG) in 1996 at $80/oz and Antamina (Peru) in 1996 at 4.8¢/lb.

When transactions were studied on the basis of purchase price as a proportion of gross in situ value the range was somewhat similar, ranging from <1% to 7% for copper and from 2% to 58% for gold properties.

At best, these senior mining comp any examples can be only used as crude numbers to which more junior exploration properties may or may not be compared. Gross in situ value is generally not an appropriate valuation technique for early stage explora-tion properties, although it gives a rough estimate of value for advanced projects with substantial resources. $/Unit Area or $/Property

Ward & Lawrence (1998) have made comparisons on the basis of “dollars per unit area of favourable ground” (emphasis on favourable) for properties without reserves or commodities other than gold. Two interesting observations, which I can confirm from my own experience, are that: (1) larger properties have a lower unit value/hectare than smaller ones and (2) in a hot area most properties will sell at similar prices, irrespective of size, or even exploration prospectivity.

Also in Roscoe (1988) the Market comparables are better ex-pressed as a range of the total purchase price per property. In a survey, 50% of 445 transactions for gold properties in 1995 and 1996 lay between $100,000 to $1 million; 27% were less than $100,000 and 23% were greater than $1 million.

4. Market Capitalization. The value of an exploration property can, rarely, be determined by market capitalization of a (junior) company if its sole asset is that property, or a collection of similar exploration properties, or if the property is adjacent to one with an identifiable public market value. For thinly traded stocks the price of share transactions on any particular day are not indicative of the price for which the entire company could be sold. Furthermore the trading price of a junior mining company is affected by many factors, often having little relationship to the fair market value of the company’s properties. This can be misleading particularly, if the public company holds only a minority interest in the property.

For these reasons market cap generally is an inappropriate valu-ation method. However, if there is substantial trading volume, this method may provide an indication of value.

5. Miscellaneous. There are two other techniques that have been attempted in the past to value exploration properties: Book Value from Financial Statements and Replacement Cost. Neither of these is applicable to exploration properties.

Book Value is often used as the basis for negotiating farm outs since most companies capitalize exploration costs until a devel-opment or abandonment decision is reached. As noted there is often no relationship between cost and value. (However, see new proposed CDN-X policy.)

Replacement Value is the capital replacement costs of mine, mill and infrastructure for producers and former producers and does not usually apply to exploration properties. Sometimes the current cost of reproducing relevant exploration data such as geochemi-cal and geophysical surveys, drilling and assaying or exploration openings is considered under the Appraised Value Method.

Replacement value is often confused with salvage, or disposal value that for exploration properties can be quite low or nil.

F. COMMENTS FROM REGULATORS Redwick & Stevenson (1992) of the BCSC did not approve the

application of a premium to past costs. They would prefer the valua-tor to use a different method to value what they called “spectacular” exploration properties. The BCSC accepts the Comparable Properties Method, but with many reservations, however they generally do not accept the Probabilistic Method or the Geoscience Factor Method since their subjective nature contravenes established policy. Some-times they accept the Metal in Situ Method, but only as a check on other methods.

The VSE policy (Oddy 1995) was that valuations based on Ap-praised Value, or Geoscience Factor or the Conceptual Ore Body (Probabilistic) Method are generally not acceptable. Valuations based on a Premium or Discount on costs, or Comparable Transac-tions, or Value of Metal in Situ, or on Option Terms, appeared to be the most useful in support of the issuance of a significant number of free trading shares, as a portion of the consideration for resource property acquisitions.

A recent Vancouver Stock Exchange (VSE) opinion (K. Karchmar 1999) is that “prior expenditures must be judged on their value to the purchaser” and that, “in most cases the VSE does not consider proposed future expenditures to be a valid basis for establishing Fair Market Value”. I agree with the first comment, but not the second. A proposed policy for the new Canadian Venture Exchange (CDNX) is currently in the discussion stage.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The process of valuation of exploration properties and undevel-oped mineral resources is one where the experience and impartiality of the geologist are critical. It is important that value be examined from several viewpoints, as the fair market value so determined will be a notional rather than a real value. The Market Approach and Appraised Value methods, in my opinion, are the most defensible of the methods.

Page 44: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

�� Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

a R t i K E L

The valuation should be a range of values, if possible, rather than an absolute, and should be time and circumstance specific. This will leave the seller and the buyer room for negotiation, and, if a transac-tion results, a fair market value. The valuation is an subjective estima-tion and can be challenged; however, independent and responsible geologists should be able to value exploration properties within the same general range, say plus or minus 50%.

As a result of the need to test a particular valuation method with other methods, the client should be aware of time and cost needed to complete these tasks, which can be significant. Geologists should visit exploration properties.

The fundamental feature, however, in all valuation methods is the worthiness of future exploration; that is, the cost and extent of an achievable program is a measure of the esteem in which a property is held by others. Properties that are not explored do not increase in value unless mineralization exists in the property and the price of the commodity, or the potential of the area, changes dramatically.

Valuations are affected by the maturity of the country government and infrastructure is variable, with North America, Western Europe and Australia meriting higher unit values than those of developing countries.

REFERENCES AGNERIAN, HRAYR, 1996a Valuation of Exploration Properties; CIM Bulletin, V. 89, no. 1004,

p. 69-72 AUSTRALASIAN INSTITUTE OF MINING & METALLURGY,

1998 (VALMIN Code), “Code and Guidelines for Technical Assessment

and/or Valuation of Mineral and Petroleum Assets and Mineral and Petroleum Securities for Independent Expert Reports”, 1997 edition, Carlton, Vic, Australia, 23 pages.

ELLIS, TREVOR R., Ellis International Services, Inc., ABBOTT, JR., DAVID M., Behre Dolbear & Company, Inc., SANDRI, HENRY J., Behre Dolbear & Company, Inc. (SME Preprint 99-29)

Trends in the Regulation of Mineral Deposit Valuation GLANVILLE, R., 1986, 1989, 1990 The Valuation of Mineral Properties (three articles), Vancouver

Market Report Valuation of Mining Properties; paper presented at April 1989 Semi-

nar for Continuing Legal Education, Vancouver Evaluation of Mineral Properties, Presentation at NWMA Conference,

Spokane, Washington – December 6, 1990 GOULEVITCH, J., 1991 Valuation of Mineral Exploration Properties Without ‘Identified’

Reserves – a view from the field: The Australian Mining and Metallurgical Bulletin, no. 7, pp. 40-46.

KARCHMAR, KEN, 1999 Mineral Property Valuations and the VSE; paper presented at January

1999 seminar for Continuing Legal Education, Vancouver KILBURN, LIONEL C., 1990, 1998 Valuation of Mineral Properties which do not Contain Exploitable

Reserves; CIM Bulletin, v. 83, p. 90-93, August 1990 Do Shareholders Really Care about Mineral Property Value; Paper

presented at PDAC Convention, March 1998. LAWRENCE, MICHAEL J., 1994 An Overview of Valuation Methods for Exploration Properties – A

paper presented at Mineral Valuation Methodologies Confer-ence, Sydney October 27, 1994.

LAWRENCE, ROSS D., 1988 Evaluating Properties that Have No Proven Ore Reserves; The

Northern Miner, December 26, 1988, page 2 LAWRENCE, ROSS D., 1989 Valuation of Mineral Assets: Accoun-

tancy or Alchemy? A paper presented at the Annual General Meeting, CIMM,

May 2, 1989 LAWRENCE, ROSS D., 1998 Valuation of Mineral Assets; An Overview; Paper presented as part

of a course offered by the Geological Association of Canada and the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada, May 17, 1998

LOUCKS, T.A. & DEMPSEY, S., 1997 Mining Finance: Some Perspectives of the Small Mines, SEG News

Letter, January 1997. MACKENZIE, B.W., 1987 Economic Guidelines for Exploration Planning, Queens University

– Seminar Series ODDY, RICHARD W., 1995 A Review of Mining and Oil/Gas Property Acquisition Policies and

Guidelines for the Vancouver Stock Exchange. March, 1994. Revised June 1995.

PARRISH, I.S. & MULLEN, JR. T., 1998 Mineral Property Price Ranges, Mining Magazine, June 1998, p.

381-383 ROSCOE, WILLIAM E., 1986 Getting Your Money’s Worth; Northern Miner Magazine, No. 1, p.

17-20, February 1986. ROSCOE, WILLIAM E., 1999 The Valuation of Mineral Properties for Compensation; paper pre-

sented at the Fall Seminar of the British Columbia Expropria-tion Association, October 29, 1999.

SANDRI, H.J. & ABBOTT, JR, D.M., 1999 Extension of the Geoscience Matrix Method of Property Valuation to

Industrial Minerals. Abstract for paper to be presented at SME Symposium, Denver, February, 2000.

THOMPSON, IAN S., 1991 Valuing Mineral Properties without Quantifiable Reserves; Paper

presented at CIM Mineral Economics Symposium, Toronto, January 17, 1991

THOMPSON, IAN S., 1992 Valuing Properties without Quantifiable Reserves; paper presented

at CIM Mineral Economics Symposium, Vancouver, January 27, 1992

WARD, MARY-CLAIRE & LAWRENCE, ROSS D., 1998 Comparable Transaction Analysis: the Market Place is always Right?;

Paper presented at a Short Course, Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada, March 11, 1998.

WOODCOCK, J.R., 1985 Geoscience Rating System; Letter report to Superintendent of Bro-

kers, British Columbia Securities Commission

Page 45: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

��Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

p E n i L a i a n p E s a W a t

Peluang Tinggi Menilai Burung BesiBisnis penerbangan di Indonesia terus mengalami pertumbuhan sangat pesat. Untuk berburu kian banyak penumpang, maskapai penerbangan domestik dan asing jor-joran memperbanyak pesawat. Inilah peluang menggiurkan bagi profesi penilai.

Dengan wilayah yang begitu luas dan terdiri lebih dari 18 ribu pulau yang memiliki garis pan-tai 5 ribu kilometer, ditambah

jumlah penduduk yang mencapai 240 juta jiwa dengan pertumbuhan kelas menengah yang sangat signifikan, Indonesia merupakan pasar potensial bagi industri penerbangan. Tak aneh jika dalam beberapa tahun terakhir industri penerbangan mengalami pertumbu-han yang sangat signifikan.

Menurut data International Air Transport Association (IATA), pada periode 2010-2014 laju pertumbuhan penerbangan dalam negeri mencapai 10 persen per tahun. IATA memprediksi pada tahun 2014 jumlah pe-numpang domestik akan mencapai 38,9 juta. Sedangkan, untuk penerbangan internasional

akan mencapai 22,7 juta. Data tersebut mem-buktikan bahwa Indonesia menjadi pasar penerbangan dengan pertumbuhan tercepat, yang mencapai sekitar 9,3 persen.

Gemuknya pasar angkutan udara ini mendorong pelaku industri penerbangan melakukan berbagai antisipasi, baik dengan menambah jumlah pesawat maupun awak pesawat. Diperkirakan, setiap tahun ada 40 pesawat baru yang beroperasi di Indonesia. Penambahan jumlah pesawat baru tersebut tentu membutuhkan sumber pembiayaan. Ini kabar baik bagi profesi penilai di tanah air. Sebab, industri penerbangan akan semakin membutuhkan jasa penilai untuk penilaian aset baik untuk tujuan jual beli, agunan, atau hak tanggungan dan sebagainya.

Untuk mengantisipasi meningkatnya ke-

butuhan jasa penilai di industri penerbangan itulah, Masyarakat Profesi Penilai Indonesia (MAPPI) menyelenggarakan workshop penilaian pesawat terbang. Workshop yang digelar di Jakarta, 2-3 Mei 2013, dimak-sudkan untuk meningkatkan kompetensi penilai di bidang penilaian pesawat terbang. Workshop menghadirkan sejumlah pembi-cara, di antaranya Odi Renaldi dari Direk-torat Penilaian Direktorat Jenderal Kekayaan Negara (DJKN) Kementerian Keuangan, Vice President Corporate Development & ICT GMF Aeroasia Rahmat Hanafi, dan Ivan Togatorop dari MAPPI.

Odi Renaldi membawakan materi yang berkaitan dengan penilaian pesawat udara serta pengenalan pesawat dan produk pener-bangan. Pemaparan materi dimulai dari defi-nisi, kategori dan kondisi pesawat, sertifikasi pesawat dan produk penerbangan, registrasi pesawat sipil di Indonesia, dan gambaran pe-sawat. Setelah itu baru memasuki pengenalan penilaian pesawat yang meliputi tujuan pe-nilaian, metode penilaian, teknik dan proses penilaian, hingga harga pesawat.

Menurut Odi Renaldi, tujuan penilaian pesawat ada berbagai macam. Mulai untuk mendapatkan opini profesional atas nilai pasar saat ini dari suatu pesawat, mendapatkan opini profesional atas nilai pesawat yang akan diper-baiki atau dimodifikasi, untuk keperluan per-pajakan, untuk kegunaan verifikasi atas suatu klaim kerusakan yang diakibatkan kebakaran, pencurian, terkena hujan es, badai, kecelakaan dan bencana lainnya, dasar pengambilan kepu-tusan untuk komitmen pembiayaan maupun akuisisi, sebagai pendapat independen menge-nai kondisi pesawat, bukti pendukung untuk harga jual, membantu calon pembeli untuk mendapatkan pembiayaan maupun asuransi, sampai membantu lembaga pembiayaan untuk menentukan harga jaminan.

Di bagian lain, Odi Renaldi menjelaskan beberapa asumsi yang umum dipakai dalam melakukan penilaian pesawat terbang. Per-tama, pesawat yang dinilai harus memenuhi semua spesifikasi dan kemampuan kinerja sesuai standar pesawat. Kedua, pesawat yang dinilai harus memenuhi standar International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) dan seluruh catatan Life Limit Parts (LLP) mesin dapat dirunut (traceable), “back to birth”. Ketiga, seluruh data dan informasi yang disediakan klien harus akurat dan mencer-minkan kondisi aktual dari pesawat yang

Page 46: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

�� Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

p E n i L a i a n p E s a W a t

dinilai. Keempat, pesawat yang dinilai harus terus mendapatkan sertifikasi untuk operasi berdasarkan ketentuan otoritas penerbangan Indonesia (or a comparable authority meet-ing FAA/EASA standards) dan perawatan yang dilakukan harus sesuai dengan stan-dar industri yang berlaku. Kelima, klien (atau pihak lain yang memiliki kualifikasi sebagai pemilik) memiliki hak untuk me-manfaatkan dan memelihara pesawat yang dinilai selama jangka manfaat ekonomis dari pesawat tersebut. Keenam, pesawat yang dinilai tidak terlibat kecelakaan apa pun yang menyebabkan kerusakan yang signifikan. Dan, ketujuh, seluruh perawatan normal yang dipersyaratkan telah dilakukan dan sesuai dengan Airworthiness Directive (AD). “Seluruh persyaratan tersebut harus dipenuhi,” terang Odi.

Sementara itu, pembicara lain, Ivan Togatorop, membawakan materi tentang metode umum penilaian pesawat terbang. Dalam pemaparannya, Ivan menguraikan aspek hukum penilaian pesawat. Sesuai Undang-Undang (UU) Nomor 1 Tahun 2009 tentang Penerbangan, setiap pesawat udara yang dioperasikan di Indonesia wajib mempunyai tanda pendaftaran, memiliki sertifikat pendaftaran, memenuhi standar kelaikudaraan, dan sertifikat kelaikudaraan setelah lulus pemeriksaan dan pengujian ke-laikudaraan. Dijelaskan juga, obyek pesawat udara dapat dibebani dengan kepentingan internasional yang timbul akibat perjanjian pemberian hak jaminan kebendaan, per-janjian pengikatan hak bersyarat, dan/atau perjanjian sewa guna usaha.

Dari aspek hukum inilah, menurutnya, penilai bisa mendasarkan opini nilai yang akan diberikan. Karena itu, imbuhnya, isi laporan penilaian pesawat terbang memuat identifikasi pemberi tugas, maksud dan tujuan penilaian,tanggal penilaian, tanggal laporan dan tanggal inspeksi, dasar dan definisi penilaian (nilai pasar, nilai selain nilai pasar), obyek penilaian, ruang ling-kup penugasan yang meliputi identifikasi masalah, inspeksi dan pengumpulan data, anaisis data, penerapan metode penilaian, pelaporan, asumsi dan kondisi pembatas, menyatakan asumsi khusus (jika ada), deskripsi, informasi dan data, analisis pasar, mencantumkan pernyataan penilai, pendeka-tan dan prosedur penilaian, persetujuan atau pembatasan publikasi,pernyataan penilai,

konfirmasi penilaian tunduk pada SPI, kon-firmasi penilai, opini nilai dalam angka dan huruf, nama, kualifkasi professional, dan tanda tangan penilai.

Dalam hal inspeksi fisik pesawat, dijelas-kan Ivan, penilai sedianya mencatat name plate pesawat dan name plate komponen utama pesawat untuk dicocokkan dengan dokumen pesawat. Komponen lain yang perlu dilakukan pengecekan adalah name plate, instrumen utama pesawat, kondisi pesawat yang dapat diperiksa secara visual, kondisi cat, kondisi wheel, kondisi interior, dan konfigurasi seat. Untuk kepentingan ini, penilai juga harus membuat dokumen foto tampak depan, tampak samping, tampak belakang, engine, landing gear, tampak dalam, dan kokpit.

Berkenaan dengan dokumen pesawat, menurutnya, yang perlu dilakukan pemerik-saan di lapangan mencakup logbook pesawat dan engine. Di sini, menurutnya, penilai dapat meminta resume status atas logbook pesawat dan engine. Status pesawat dan engine ini meliputi TSN, CSN, TSO, CSO, modification status, time of inspection (A, B, C, D-Check), dan lainnya.

Seluruh dokumen penting tersebut, menurut Ivan, perlu dibuat salinannya untuk dokumen kertas kerja penilai. Jika diperlu-kan dapat disertai dengan surat pernyataan bahwa salinan dokumen sesuai dengan do-kumen asli atau dalam laporan dinyatakan disclaimer; bahwa seluruh dokumen yang diterima adalah benar dan sesuai dengan dokumen asli.

Dokumen yang diperlukan meliputi do-kumen kepemilikan yang mencakup bill of

sale. Sementara dokumen kelaikan pesawat mencakup certificate of registration (C of R), certificate of airworthiness (C of A), radio permit, weight & balance check (W & B), swing compass (S & C), sampai maintenance program.

Penilaian pesawat udara, demikian ditegaskan Ivan, bisa dilakukan dengan menggunakan pendekatan data pasar (Mar-ket Data Approach Formula). Berdasarkan pendekatan ini, nilai pesawat udara didapat-kan dari nilai dasar (base value) nilai pesawat udara ditambah/dikurangi kondisi obyek penilaian (pesawat udara) seperti perawatan pesawat, interior dan eksterior pesawat, sertifikasi, perawatan mesin, dan lain-lain. Teknik yang umum digunakan adalah de-ngan melakukan adjustment terhadap aver-age market value untuk pesawat dengan tipe dan tahun tertentu. Average market value tersebut kemudian ditambah adjustment dibagi market value.

Untuk pendekatan Income Approach, ujar Ivan, masih bisa dilakukan penilai dengan menghitung pendapatan kotor per bulan lalu dibulatkan menjadi pendapatan kotor per tahun. Pendapatan kotor per tahun ini kemudian dikurangi biaya operasional. Dari sana akan diperoleh pendapatan bersih dengan tingkat kapitalisasi yang telah dihi-tung. Dari sinilah kemudian akan dihasilkan nilai pasar. Di bagian lain Ivan menegaskan, dalam hal penilaian pesawat terbang, Cost Approach kurang aplikatif digunakan. Sebab, menurutnya, nilai pasar sangat ditentukan oleh pasar pesawat second. Pendekatan ini hanya dapat digunakan untuk pesawat yang masih diproduksi dan relatif baru. q

Page 47: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

��Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

L a p o R a n K h U s U s

Selamat Datang Standar Baru…Masyarakat Profesi Penilai Indonesia (MAPPI) mulai memberlakukan standar profesi yang baru yang disebut Standar Penilaian Indonesia (SPI) 2013. Mengacu pada pengaturan yang bersifat prinsip dan lebih simpel dibandingkan dengan SPI 2007, standar baru ini diharapkan mampu mendorong peningkatan kompetensi, profesionalitas penilai, dan daya saing profesi penilai Indonesia.

Mulai Mei 2013 hingga bebe-rapa bulan ke depan, MAPPI dan Pusat Pembinaan Akun-tan dan Jasa Penilai (PPAJP)

Sekretariat Jenderal Kementerian Keuangan (Kemenkeu) tengah gencar mengadakan kegiatan sosialisasi SPI 2013. Setidaknya, yang sudah terjadwal sebanyak enam kali dan diselenggarakan di beberapa tempat, se-perti di Jakarta, Bogor, Bandung, Semarang, Surabaya, dan Medan.

SPI 2013 ini telah disahkan pada 25 April 2013 di Hotel Bidakara Jakarta. Pengesahan dilakukan Ketua Umum MAPPI Hamid Yu-suf dan Ketua Komite Penyusun SPI 2013 Rengganis Kartomo serta disaksikan Kepala

PPAJP Langgeng Subur. Acara pengesahan dihadiri jajaran pengurus MAPPI, pejabat di lingkungan PPAJP, dan para penilai. Standar baru ini mulai berlaku efektif enam bulan se-jak disahkan. Artinya, per 1 November 2013, standar yang baru ini mulai diberlakukan untuk menggantikan standar yang lama.

“Sebelum itu, penilai juga sudah dapat menggunakan standar yang baru ini,” ujar Rengganis. “Tapi nanti mulai November, semua kegiatan penilaian sudah wajib meng-ikuti SPI 2013,” imbuh Rengganis.

Penyusunan SPI 2013 ini sudah diper-siapkan sejak awal 2012, dan semula diren-canakan selesai dan diberlakukan pada tahun itu juga, dan akan diberi nama SPI 2012.

Namun karena baru selesai pada dan mulai diberlakukan tahun 2013 ini, maka namanya pun menjadi SPI 2013. “Ini pun baru tahap pertama. Tahap kedua direncanakan selesai akhir tahun ini juga,” tandas Rengganis.

Tim Penyusun yang dibentuk pada 2011 ini terdari atas pengarah, nara sumber, dan penyusun. Pengarah terdiri dari 6 orang, yaitu Hartoyo, Insukendro, Langgeng Subur, Machfud Siddik, Suryantoro Budisusilo, dan M Syaiful Ruky. Sedangkan, nara sumber terdiri dari 5 orang, yaitu Doli D Siregar, Eddy Surkat, Fardly Noeshran, Felix Su-tandar (ex-officio Ketua Dewan Penguji), dan Okky Danuza (ex-officio Ketua Dewan Penilai). Adapun tim penyusun sebanyak 15 orang. Mereka adalah Rengganis Kar-tomo (Ketua), Tonny Hambali (Sekretaris), Jimmy T Prasetyo, Budi Martokoesoemo, Miduk Pakpahan, Agustinus Tamba, Deden Irawan, Hamid Yusuf, Mamik E Soessanto, Muhammad Muttaqin, Panca Jatmika, Rudy M Safrudin, Suwendho Kemandjaja, Triono Soedirdjo, dan Willy D Koesnanto.

IVS 2011Dengan diterbitkannya SPI 2013, berarti

sudah empat kali MAPPI melakukan penyem-purnaan terhadap standar profesi penilai, mulai dari SPI 1994, SPI 2000, SPI 2002, dan SPI 2007. Menurut Rengganis, penyusunan SPI 2013 ini dilakukan untuk merespons dina-mika dan lanskap perekonomian global yang terus berkembang begitu cepat dan masif. Penyusunannya mengacu pada International Valuation Standards (IVS) 2011 yang berlaku di dunia internasional.

Dengan mengacu pada IVS 2011 terse-but, berbeda dari SPI 2007, SPI 2013 menjadi lebih sederhana dan hanya mengatur hal-hal prinsip (principle based). Hal ini sesuai dengan tren global, salah satunya yang terjadi pada dunia akuntansi yang sudah menerapkan International Financial Report-ing Standards (IFRS) atau Standar Laporan Keuangan Internasional, yang juga menganut principle based. Dengan pengacuan terse-but, SPI 2013 juga memberikan porsi yang sama antara pengaturan standar penilaian bisnis dan penilaian property. Hal ini yang jadi salah satu pembeda dengan SPI-SPI sebelumnya.

Secara umum, sistematika SPI 2013 ini memang berbeda dengan SPI 2007. Dalam sistematika SPI 2013, Kode Etik Penilai

Page 48: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

�� Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

L a p o R a n K h U s U s

Indonesia (KEPI) ditempatkan pada bagian paling awal. Meskipun begitu, jika pada SPI 2007 KEPI dianggap sebagai satu kesatuan dengan SPI, pada SPI 2013 dinyatakan de-ngan tegas bahwa KEPI berdiri sendiri dan bukan bagian dari SPI meskipun masih diterbitkan dalam satu buku.

Selanjutnya, sistematika SPI 2013 terdiri atas Pendahuluan, Kerangka Konseptual, Standar Umum, Standar Penerapan, dan Standar Teknis. Sementara itu, pada SPI 2007, sistematikanya terdiri atas Penda-huluan, Kode Etik. Kerangka Konseptual, Standar, Penerapan Penilaian, dan Panduan Penerapan Penilaian. Dari sini terlihat bahwa penggunaan istilahnya pun mulai berbeda.

Pada Kerangka Konseptual yang meli-puti Konsep dan Prinsup Umum Penilaian (KPUP) dari segi sistematika memang tidak berbeda, yaitu terdiri dari Real Properti, Personal Properti, Perusahaan/Badan Usaha, dan Hak Kepemilikan Finansial. Namun, perumusannya mengalami sejumlah penyem-purnaan.

Memasuki bagian standar umum mulai terjadi perbedaan yang sangat mendasar. Pada SPI 2007 hanya dikenal tiga standar, yaitu SPI 1 tentang Nilai Pasar sebagai Dasar Penilaian, SPI 2 tentang Dasar Penilaian selain Nilai Pasar, dan SPI 3 tentang Pelapo-ran Penilaian; pada SPI 2013 terdapat lima standar, yaitu SPI 101 tentang Nilai Pasar sebagai Dasar Penilaian, SPI 102 tentang Dasar Penilaian selain Nilai Pasar, SPI 103 tentang Lingkup Penugasan, SPI 104 tentang Implementasi, dan SPI 105 tentang Pelaporan Penilaian.

Satu level di bawah standar umum, pada SPI 2007 terdapat tiga Penerapan Penilaian Indonesia (PPI), yaitu PPI 1 tentang Pe-nilaian untuk Pelaporan Keuangan, PPI 2 tentang Penilaian untuk Tujuan Penjaminan Utang, dan PPI 3 tentang Penilaian Aset Sektor Publik. Sementara itu, pada SPI 2013, istilahnya menggunakan Standar Penilaian Indonesia (SPI) dengan menggunakan kode penomoran berdasar urutan. Sehingga, dikenal istilah SPI 201 tentang Penilaian untuk Pelaporan Keuangan, SPI 202 tentang Penilaian untuk Tujuan Penjaminan Utang, dan SPI 203 tentang Penilaian Aset Sektor Publik. Dengan sistem penomoran ini, SPI 1-- berarti merujuk pada standar umum, sedangkan SPI 2-- merujuk pada standar penerapan.

Berikutnya adalah yang disebut sebagai tahap kedua dari SPI, yaitu yang dalam SPI 2013 disebut Standar Teknis yang dalam SPI 2007 disebut Panduan Penerapan Penilaian Indonesia (PPPI). Dalam SPI 2007 terdapat 17 PPPI, sedangkan dalam SPI 2013 terdapat 18 Standar Teknis. Pengkodeannya meng-gunakan nomor 3. Artinya, jika tertulis “SPI 3---“ berarti merujuk pada Standar Teknis. Ke-18 Standar Teknis tersebut meliputi SPI 300 tentang Penilaian Real Properti, SPI 301 tentang Penilaian Hak Sewa, SPI 302 tentang Penilaian Properti Agri, SPI 303 tentang Penilaian Properti dengan Bisnis Khusus, SPI 304 tentang Penilaian Massal untuk Kepentingan Perpajakan, SPI 305 tentang Pe-nilaian Properti Industri Pertambangan, SPI 306 tentang Penilaian terhadap Pengadaan Tanah bagi Pembangunan untuk Kepentingan Umum, SPI 310 tentang Penilaian Personal Properti, SPI 311 tentang Penilaian Mesin dan Peralatan, SPI 320 tentang Penilaian Aset Tak Berwujud, SPI 330 tentang Penilaian Bisnis, SPI 340 tentang Penilaian Instru-men Keuangan, SPI 350 tentang Pendekatan Biaya untuk Pelaporan Keuangan, SPI 351 tentang Analisa Discounted Cash Flow (DCF), SPI 361 tentang Analisis HBU, SPI 361 tentang Opini Kewajaran (Fairness Opinion), SPI 362 tentang Inspeksi dan Hal yang Dipertimbangkan, dan SPI 363 tentang Kaji Ulang Penilaian.

Dijelaskan Rengganis, untuk standar umum yang berkode SPI 1, dua merupakan standar baru dan tiga lainnya merupakan standar lama yang mengalami perubahan. Dua standar umum yang baru adalah SPI 103 tentang Lingkup Penugasan dan SPI

104 tentang Implementasi. Sedangkan, tiga standar lama yang mengalami perubahan adalah SPI 101 tentang Nilai Pasar sebagai Dasar Penilaian, SPI 102 tentang Dasar Penilaian selain Nilai Pasar, dan SPI 105 tentang Pelaporan Penilaian.

Sementara itu, untuk level standar penerapan, ketiga-ketiganya masih meng-gunakan SPI 2007. Sebagai contoh, untuk SPI 201 tentang Penilaian untuk Pelaporan Keuangan, sebelumnya merupakan PPI 1 pada SPI 2007 dan tidak mengalami peruba-han. Begitu juga dengan SPI 202 tentang Penilaian untuk Tujuan Penjaminan Utang dan SPI 203 tentang Penilaian untuk Aset Sektor Publik, semuanya diambil dari PPI 2 dan PPI 3 dalam SPI 2007. Sedangkan, di level standar teknis yang terdapat 18 standar, yang benar-benar baru ada tiga standar tek-nis, yaitu SPI 306 tentang Penilai terhadap Pengadaan Tanah bagi Pembangunan untuk Kepentingan Umum, SPI 340 tentang Pe-nilaian Instrumen Keuangan; dan SPI 360 tentang Analisis HBU. Yang mengalami perubahan ada dua standar teknis, yaitu SPI 320 tentang Penilaian Aset Tak Berwujud, dan SPI 330 tentang Penilaian Bisnis. Sele-bihnya, sebanyak 13 standar teknis masih menggunakan PPPI dari SPI 2007.

Konsep dan DefinisiDari sisi konsep, menurut Rengganis,

meskipun mengacu pada IVS 2011, perumu-sannya tetap disesuaikan dengan kondisi dan kepentingan usaha jasa penilai di Indonesia. Artinya, apa yang tertuang dalam IVS 2011 tidak sekadar di-copy paste dan dialihbaha-sakan begitu saja, melainkan disesuaikan dengan kondisi dan kebutuhan standar penilaian di Indonesia. “Ada penyesuaian-penyesuaian,” Rengganis menegaskan.

Hal tersebut juga dibenarkan Budi Martokoesoemo, salah satu anggota tim penyusun SPI 2013 dengan bidang tugas penyusunan standar penilaian bisnis. “Tidak semua yang ada di IVS 2011 diambil mentah-mentah. ada yang hampir sama, ada yang sama tapi persis. Intinya ada penyesuaian agar sesuai dengan situasi dan kondisi di Indonesia. Prosesnya, SPI 2007 kita revisi, kita perbaiki, lalu disempurnakan dengan IVS 2011,” ujar Budi Marto.

Dengan proses penyusunan seperti ini, menurut Budi Marto, dibandingkan dengan SPI-SPI sebelumnya, SPI 2013 memang

Rengganis Kartomo

Page 49: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

��Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

L a p o R a n K h U s U s

menganut principle based ini lebih sempurna tapi hanya memberikan rambu-rambu atau parameter atau prinsip-prinsip pokok dalam hal standar penilaian. Namun begitu, imbuh Budi Marto, SPI baru ini justru lebih ketat dalam pengaturan penerapan standar.

Perbedaan antara IVS dengan SPI 2013, misalnya, terlihat pada jumlah dan peng-urutan standar umum. Misalnya, standar umum dalam IVS hanya mengatur masalah Lingkup Penugasan, Implementasi, dan Pelaporan Penilaian. Sementara itu, dalam SPI 2013, seperti telah disebutkan, terdapat 5 standar umum karena masih menyertakan standar umum dari SPI 2007, yaitu peng-aturan masalah Nilai Pasar sebagai Dasar Penilaian dan Dasar Penilaian selain Nilai Pasar — kemudian memasukkan tiga standar umum dari IVS, yaitu Lingkup Penugasan, Implementasi, dan Pelaporan Penilaian.

Sebagai standar yang juga dimaksud-kan untuk merespons dan mengakomodasi perkembangan pasar, menurut Rengganis, beberapa definisi istilah yang digunakan standar juga mengalami penyesuaian atau penyempurnaan. Satu di antaranya, dan yang paling krusial, adalah pengertian nilai pasar. Dalam SPI-SPI sebelumnya, penyusunan pengertian nilai pasar baru mengakomodasi kepentingan penilaian properti. “Yang seka-rang, sudah disesuaikan dengan kepentingan penilaian bisnis dan kebutuhan laporan keuangan pula,” ujarnya.

Dalam SPI 2013, kini “Nilai Pasar didefi-nisikan sebagai estimasi sejumlah uang yang dapat diperoleh dari hasil penukaran suatu aset atau kewajiban pada tanggal penilaian, antara pembeli yang berminat membeli de-ngan penjual yang berminat menjual, dalam suatu transaksi bebas ikatan, yang pema-sarannya dilakukan secara layak, di mana kedua pihak masing-masing bertindak atas dasar pemahaman yang dimilikinya, kehati-hatian dan tanpa paksaan”.

Kini bandingkan, misalnya, dengan defi-nisi pada SPI 2007: “Nilai Pasar didefinisikan sebagai estimasi sejumlah uang pada tanggal penilaian, yang dapat diperoleh dari transaksi jual beli atau hasil penukaran suatu properti, antara pembeli yang berminat membeli de-ngan penjual yang berminat menjual, dalam suatu transaksi bebas ikatan, yang pema-sarannya dilakukan secara layak, di mana kedua pihak masing-masing bertindak atas

dasar pemahaman yang dimilikinya, kehati-hatian dan tanpa paksaan.”

Pada SPI 2007, Nilai Pasar hanya mun-cul dari hasil jual beli atau hasil penukaran suatu propert; sementara itu, pada SPI 2013, Nilai Pasar muncul dari hasil penukaran suatu aset atau kewajiban. Kata kunci “properti” digantikan dengan “aset” — dan masih ditambahkan dengan “kewajiban”. Dengan demikian, definisi Nilai Pasar telah mengalami perluasan.

Di saat yang sama, SPI 2013 justru menegaskan dan meneguhkan posisi nilai pasar dalam pendekatan penilaian. Seperti diketahui, selain Nilai Pasar, belakangan dalam pendekatan penilaian juga dikenal istilah Nilai Pasar Wajar atau juga Nilai Wajar (Fair Value) yang berkaitan dengan penerapan IFRS dalam laporan keuangan. Menurut Rengganis, secara substansi, pengertian Nilai Pasar dan Nilai Pasar Wajar adalah sama.

“Wording-nya saja yang berbeda,” Rengganis menegaskan. Dengan demikian, imbuh Rengganis, SPI baru menegaskan bahwa dalam melakukan penilaian, penilai wajib menggunakan Nilai Pasar kecuali bila ada peraturan lain seperti di Otoritas Jasa Keuangan (OJK) yang sebelumnya diatur oleh Badan Pengawas Pasar Modal dan Lembaga Keuangan (Bapepam-LK), di mana untuk penilaian di pasar modal penilai wajib menggunakan Nilai Pasar Wajar. “Tapi,

meskipun istilahnya berbeda, pengertiannya sama,” katanya.

Begitu pun, imbuh Rengganis, dalam hal penggunaan Nilai Wajar (Fair Value). Meski-pun tidak diatur secara mendetail hingga ke level-level untuk memperoleh nilai kewa-jaran, menurut Rengganis, SPI 2013 telah mengatur sedemikian rupa sehingga kegiatan penilaian untuk laporan keuangan akan mem-peroleh Nilai Wajar yang mendekati Nilai Pasar. “Sejak IVS 2011 dikeluarkan, definisi Nilai Wajar sesuai diatur SPI 2013 sudah sangat mendekati Nilai Pasar. Sehingga, sekarang kalau berbicara Nilai Wajar, 99 persen mendekati Nilai Pasar. Sebelumnya jauh berbeda,” Rengganis menjelaskan.

Budi Martokoesoemo

Page 50: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

�0 Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

L a p o R a n K h U s U s

Mempraktekkan StandarSPI 2013 yang telah disahkan tersebut

baru merupakan tahap pertama baru sampai pada standar umum dan standar penerapan. Tahap kedua akan meliputi standar teknis. Menurut rencana, pada Agustus mendatang exposure draft tahap kedua sudah selesai, dan bisa disahkan pada Desember 2013.

Kepala PPAJP Langgeng Subur mengaku sangat gembira dengan telah disahkannya SPI 2013 ini. Menurut Langgeng, dengan SPI yang baru ini, diharapkan dapat mendo-rong peningkatan kompetensi, kualitas, dan profesionalitas profesi penilai di Indonesia. “Karena standarnya sudah mengacu pada IVS 2011, kami berharap profesi penilai

mampu meningkatkan kompetensi dan punya daya saing global. Sebab, mau tidak mau, suka tidak suka, kita sudah harus siap dengan pasar bebas,” katanya.

Langgeng mengakui bahwa SPI 2013 ini lebih baik dibandingkan dengan SPI-SPI sebelumnya. Apalagi, imbuhnya, penyusu-nannya telah mengacu pada IVS 2011 yang telah menjadi best practices standar penilaian di dunia internasional. Dengan demikian, kata Langgeng, praktek penilaian di Indo-nesia telah mengikuti kaidah-kaidah praktek penilaian yang berlaku secara internasional. Sehingga, profesi penilai Indonesia pun dapat bersaing di dunia internasional.

Doli D Siregar, anggota Dewan Penilai MAPPI yang juga menjadi nara sumber penyusunan SPI 2013, mengakui bahwa SPI yang baru ini lebih baik jika dibandingkan dengan SPI-SPI sebelumnya. “Setidaknya jika dilihat dari proses penyusunannya,” ujarnya.

Menurut Doli, dalam proses penyusunan SPI kali ini terjadi perdebatan yang sangat intens dan terbuka, baik di dalam tim-tim kecil maupun dalam forum-forum yang lebih luas. Selain itu, semakin banyak penilai yang peduli dan melibatkan diri dalam perdebatan-perdebatan mulai dari tahap perumusan draf hingga desiminasi. “Fenomena seperti ini belum pernah terjadi sebelumnya. Ini sangat menggembirakan. Sebab, fenomena tersebut menunjukkan bahwa semua mulai

peduli pada kemajuan profesi ini,” Doli menjelaskan.

Setelah SPI 2013 ini disahkan, Langgeng Subur menambahkan, selanjutnya tinggal bagaimana menerapkannya dalam praktek dan kegiatan penilaian. Sebab, lanjutnya, se-baik apa pun SPI disusun, jika tidak dibarengi dengan kesadaran dari kalangan penilai sendiri untuk mentaati dan menerapkannya, ya tidak berarti apa-apa. Karena itulah, kata Langgeng, sedini mungkin PPAJP-MAPPI menggelar sosialisasi.

Begitu disahkan, PPAJP-MAPPI men-jadwalkan enam kali sosialisasi untuk penilai berizin (penilai publik). Kegiatan sosialisasi ini dijadikan program pendidikan profesi lanjutan (PPL) dari PPAJP dan wajib diikuti oleh semua penilai berizin. Yang pertama dilakukan di Puncak, Bogor, awal Mei 2013 dan diikuti 60 penilai publik.

Berbeda dengan kegiatan serupa sebe-lumnya, sosialisasi 2013 ini diselenggarakan dengan lebih intensif. Seperti dalam sosiali-sasi di Bogor tersebut, penyelenggaraannya memakan waktu dua hari. Peserta pun tidak hanya pasif mendengarkan presentasi dari nara sumber. Sebab, setelah sesi presentasi, dibentuk kelompok-kelompok kecil untuk melakukan diskusi, pembahasan, dan pen-dalaman materi. Tiap peserta juga diwajibkan mengikuti kegiatan secara penuh.

“Ini merupakan bagian dari langkah kami agar semua penilai publik bisa memahami secara benar SPI yang baru ini dan kemudian menerapkan dalam praktek di lapangan,” ujar Langgeng Subur. Setelah selesai masa sosialisasi, PPAJP akan melakukan pembinaan dan pengawasan lebih ketat lagi terkait dengan penerapan SPI. “Kami juga sudah menyiapkan mekanisme pengawasannya. Nanti, penilai publik yang tidak mematuhi SPI pasti akan beri sanksi,” Langgeng menegaskan.

Menurut Langgeng, jika tiap kali sosia-lisasi yang dilaksanakan PPAJP ini diikuti sekitar 60 peserta, dalam enam putaran sesuai yang dijadwalkan, kegiatan sosialisasi ini telah menjangkau seluruh penilai publik yang ada saat ini. Selanjutnya, imbuh Langgeng, untuk sosialisasi kepada penilai-penilai yang belum berizin, penyelenggaraannya diserah-kan kepada MAPPI.

“Sebagai pembina dan pengawas, tugas kami hanya menjangkau penilai berizin. Selebihnya menjadi tugas MAPPI,” kata Langgeng. q

Langgeng Subur

Page 51: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

��Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

L a p o R a n K h U s U s

Sistematika KEPI 2007

1.0 Pendahuluan2.0 Ruang Lingkup3.0 Definisi4.0 Etika 4.1 Integritas 4.2 Benturan Kepentingan (Conflict of Interest) 4.3 Kerahasiaan 4.4 Ketidakberpihakan (Impartially)5.0 Kompetensi6.0 Syarat Pengungkapan7.0 Perilaku 7.1 Tanggung Jawab terhadap Integritas Pribadi Penilai 7.2 Tanggung Jawab terhadap Pemberi Tugas 7.3 Tanggung Jawab terjadap Sesama Penilai dan Usaha Jasa Penilai 7.4 Tanggung Jawab terhadap Masyarakat8.0 Kutipan dan Tanggal Berlaku

Meneguhkan Posisi Kode Etik

Agar tidak terjadi bias, kode etik dipisahkan dari standar penilaian. Ada pembedaan tegas antara pelanggaran kode etik dengan standard profesi.

Selama ini sering terjadi bias, jika terjadi suatu pelanggaran, apakah seorang penilai akan dikategorikan telah melanggar kode etik atau

standar profesi. Padahal keduanya jelas berbeda, termasuk konsekuensi hukumnya. Yang pertama berkaitan dengan etika dan moral (perilaku). Yang kedua berhubungan dengan professional judgment. Pelanggaran kode etik bisa masuk ranah pidana, sedang-kan pelanggaran standar profesi tidak.

“Jadi, memang harus ada pembedaan yang tegas,” demikian diungkapkan Ketua Komite Penyusun Standar Penilaian Indo-nesia (KP SPI) Masyarakat Profesi Penilai Indonesia (MAPPI) Rengganis Kartomo tentang alasan Kode Etik Penilai Indonesia (KEPI) dipisahkan dari Standar Penilaian Indonesia (SPI) 2013. “Mana yang masuk ranah kode etik, mana yang masuk ranah standard profesi, tidak boleh bias,” dia menjelaskan.

Seperti diketahui, April lalu MAPPI telah mengesahkan SPI 2013 untuk menggantikan SPI 2007. SPI baru ini mulai berlaku efektif November nanti. Berbeda dengan SPI-SPI

sebelumnya, dalam SPI 2013 ini secara tegas dinyatakan bahwa KEPI bukan merupakan bagian dari atau menjadi satu kesatuan de-ngan SPI 2013 — meskipun disahkan pada

waktu yang sama dan diterbitkan dalam buku yang sama.

Dijelaskan Rengganis, seperti halnya SPI 2013, KEPI yang baru ini juga dinamakan KEPI 2013. Tentu saja, sebagai rumusan baru, KEPI 2013 berbeda dengan KEPI 2007. Sebab, telah dilakukan perubahan dan penyempurnaan. KEPI baru ini juga mulai berlaku efektif enam bulan sejak disahkan, yaitu pada November 2013 nanti.

Karena telah “dikeluarkan” dan terpisah dari SPI 2013, dalam buku SPI 2013 yang baru diterbitkan, naskah KEPI ditempatkan di bagian paling awal, sebelum bab Penda-huluan dari SPI 2013. Sebelumnya, pada SPI 2007, KEPI ditempatkan setelah Pendahu-luan karena dianggap bagian dari SPI.

Pemisahan tersebut, menurut Rengganis, merupakan bagian paling krusial dalam pe-nyusunan KEPI yang baru ini. Sebab, imbuh Rengganis, pemisahan ini memiliki im-plikasi yang sangat mendasar, yaitu adanya pembedaan yang tegas antara ranah kode etik dengan standar profesi. “Selebihnya memang dilakukan perubahan-perubahan, penyempurnaan, dan penambahan, tapi tidak mendasar,” ujar Rengganis.

Perubahan, menurut Rengganis, terutama dilakukan pada sistematikanya. Seperti ter-

Page 52: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

�2 Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

L a p o R a n K h U s U s

lihat pada tabel, misalnya, perubahan siste-matika dilakukan mulai pada bagian etika. Pada KEPI 2007, disebutkan bahwa 4.0 Etika meliputi 4.1 Integritas; 4.2 Benturan Kepen-tingan (Conflict of Interest); 4.3 Kerahasiaan; dan 4.4 Ketidakberpihakan (Impartially). Sementara itu, dalam KEPI 2013, bagian ini berubah menjadi 4.0 Prinsip Dasar Etik yang meliputi a. Integritas, b. Obyektivitas, c.

Kompetensi, d. Kerahasiaan, dan e. Perilaku Profesional. Setelah itu ditambahkan materi baru berupa 5.0 Panduan Prinsip Dasar Etika dan 5.0 Ancaman dan Perlindungan, yang tidak terdapat pada SPI 2007.

Bab selanjutnya adalah Pedoman Tingkah Laku, yang dalam KEPI sebelumnya adalah bab Perilaku. Isinya sama, yaitu meliputi Tanggung Jawab terhadap Integritas Pribadi

Sistematika KEPI 2013

1.0 Pendahuluan2.0 Ruang Lingkup3.0 Definisi4.0 Prinsip Dasar Etik a. Integritas b. Obyektivitas c. Kompetensi d. Kerahasiaan e. Perilaku Profesional5.0 Panduan Prinsip Dasar Etika6.0 Ancaman dan Perlindungan7.0 Pedoman Tingkah Laku 7.1 Tanggung Jawab terhadap Integritas Pribadi Penilai 7.2 Tanggung Jawab terhadap Pemberi Tugas 7.3 Tanggung Jawab terjadap Sesama Penilai dan Usaha Jasa Penilai 7.4 Tanggung Jawab terhadap Masyarakat

Penilai, Tanggung Jawab terhadap Pemberi Tugas, Tanggung Jawab terjadap Sesama Penilai dan Usaha Jasa Penilai, dan Tanggung Jawab terhadap Masyarakat. Hanya, di sana-sini dilakukan perubahan dan penajaman.

Dengan perubahan sistematika ini, kata Rengganis, KEPI 2013 menjadi lebih sistematis dan padu dibandingkan dengan KEPI sebelumnya. Masalah-masalah yang sebelumnya terpencar-pencar berserakan di beberapa bagian, disatukan ke dalam bagian tersendiri. Rengganis memberi contoh, di KEPI lama, masalah kompetensi saja bisa dibahas di beberapa bagian. “Mestinya di satu bagian saja dan tuntas,” tandas Reng-ganis.

Contoh lain, kata rengganis, dalam KEPI lama, independensi dan ketidakperpihakan menjadi satu dalam pembahasan tentang obyektivitas. Kini, imbuhnya, semua bahasan dirangkum dalam bahasan pokoknya saja. Dengan perubahan ini, prinsip dasar etik dirangkum ke dalam lima poin, yaitu integ-ritas, obyektifitas, kompetensi, kerahasiaan, dan perilaku profesional. “Menjadi lebih tegas bahwa kelima prinsip dasar etik inilah yang tidak boleh dilanggar penilai. Pelang-garan terhadap salah satu atau lebih dari lima prinsip dasar etik ini otomatis masuk ranah pelanggaran kode etik,” Rengganis menjelaskan. q

Page 53: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

�3Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

L a p o R a n K h U s U s

Standar Mengakomodasi Laporan Keuangan

Masyarakat Profesi Penilai Indonesia (MAPPI) baru saja mengesahkan Standar Penilaian Indonesia (SPI) 2013 sebagai standar profesi yang baru. Penyusunan SPI baru yang mengacu pada International Valuation Standards (IVS) 2011 dimulai sejak Februari 2012 dan disahkan pada April 2013. Untuk mengetahui apa dan bagaimana SPI 2013, Majalah Media Penilai mewawancarai Ketua Tim KPSPI Rengganis Kartomo di sela-sela acara sosialisasi di Bogor, awal Mei 2013. Berikut petikannya:

Bisa diceritakan perbedaan antara SPI 2007 dengan SPI 2013?

Pertama berkaitan dengan struktur Kode Etik Penilai Indonesia (KEPI) yang sekarang sudah dipisahkan. Kedua, kenapa dibuat SPI 2013, sebab di International Valuation standards (IVS) juga mengalami perubahan. Perubahannya, terutama, antara lain adalah bahwa standar yang dulu lebih pada buyes, kepada real property. Yang sekarang ini memang lebih mengakomodasi kepentingan baik penilaian properti maupun penilaian bis-nis. Dan banyak juga terminologi baru yang kaitannya lebih kepada penerapan akuntansi

nilai wajar. Bahwa dalam pencatatan laporan keuangan boleh menggunakan nilai wajar. Di dalam standar sebelumnya masih meng-gunakan nilai pasar wajar. Tapi, di SPI 2013 sudah sama-sama menggunakan dasar nilai pasar. Kecuali untuk pasar modal, sesuai Peraturan Bapepam-LK VIII.C, masih meng-gunakan nilai pasar wajar.

Apa perbedaan nilai pasar dengan nilai pasar wajar dalam SPI 2013?

Hanya pada wording-nya, kita tidak me-lihat ada sesuatu yang substansial (berbeda) sehingga tidak bisa disatukan. Substansinya

sama. Sementara, definisi nilai pasar meng-alami perubahan yang disesuaikan dengan kebutuhan akuntansi. Sebelumnya, nilai pasar hanya untuk suatu properti, sekarang kita bilang terhadap aset atau kewajiban. Bicara aset atau kewajiban berarti berbicara terminologi akuntansi. Arahnya, memang untuk mengakomodasi laporan keuangan.

Berarti implikasinya akan ada sinergi antara penilai dengan profesi akuntan publik?

Sebelumnya, definisi nilai wajar antara satu instansi dengan lainnya berbeda. Dari dulu di akuntan juga berlaku nilai wajar yang hanya untuk tujuan internal mereka. Secara umum, nilai wajar memang mengacu pada nilai yang disepakati kedua belah pihak. Artinya, itu memang agak berbeda defi-nisinya dengan nilai pasar versi penilai. Nah, sejak IVS 2011 dikeluarkan, definisi nilai wajar, sesuai diatur SPI 2013, sudah sangat mendekati nilai pasar. Sehingga, sekarang kalau berbicara nilai wajar, 99 persen nilai pasar. Sebelumnya jauh berbeda.

Jadi, gap penggunaan nilai wajar untuk laporan keuangan dan penilaian sudah tidak ada dengan adanya SPI 2013 ini?

Dalam laporan keuangan dibolehkan akuntan mencantumkan nilai wajar, tergan-tung memakai historis atau model revaluasi. Kalau model revaluasi harus menggunakan nilai wajar. Begitu sudah nilai wajar, seka-rang sudah hampir sama dengan nilai pasar. Bisa dikatakan 99 persen nilai pasar. Sudah sama pemahamannya mengenai nilai wajar, yang sebelumnya beda.

Terminologi baru di SPI 2013 cukup banyak, apakah pelaku jasa profesi ini dapat memgaplikasikan dengan baik?

Makanya dibutuhkan sosialisasi. Tapi awalnya kita bilang cara-cara penerapannya untuk nilai wajar bagi akuntan menggunakan nilai pasar, nilai pasar penggunaan yang ada

Page 54: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

�� Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

L a p o R a n K h U s U s

dan nilai dalam penggunaan. Tapi kalau sekarang kita sudah berikan di SPI 102 itu di laporan keuangan menggunakan nilai wajar tapi dijelaskan dia ada di hirarki nilai. Sebab nilai wajarnya sudah mendekati nilai pasar, tapi masih ada yang level 3 yang bukan nilai pasar.

Apakah level nilai wajar tersebut juga diakomodasi dalam SPI 2013?

Dalam SPI 2013 tahap satu ini belum, tetapi di tahap kedua akan dibuat. Sekarang seperti kayak pengenalan dulu bahwa di SPI 102 yang bukan dasar nilai pasar, kita sudah memiliki pedoman nilai wajar. Dengan be-gitu, dia boleh nanti untuk laporan keuangan menggunakan nilai wajar itu. Tapi, untuk penerapannya memang kita masih harus menunggu tahap kedua.

Di tahap satu yang mencakup standar umum dan standar penerapan, masih ada standar teknis. Di tahap ini, standar umum plus empat standar teknis. Nanti tahap kedua akan kita selesaikan. Jadi, semua seri itu 100 yang standar umum, seri 200 yang standar penerapan, dan seri 300 yang standar teknis. Semuanya akan sudah komplit.

Targetnya sampai kapan?Desember sih maunya sudah ditetap-

kan. Nanti exposure draft-nya mestinya Agustus.

Dikesankan, selama ini SPI sulit dipa-hami. Bagaimana dengan SPI 2013?

Memang kita akui awalnya ada masalah bahasa yang sulit dipahami, sebagian besar dikatakan referensinya dari Bahasa Inggris. Mungkin ada masalah penerjemahannya tidak pas sehingga sulit dipahami. Cuma itu kayaknya sih kita berusaha memang dalam membuat wording-nya itu kita ingin agar su-paya masalah bahwa dia sulit dilaksanakan. Sebenarnya, sih, berbeda dengan pedoman Bapepam-LK yang sudah berbicara tentang rigit. Dia masih, misalnya, bicara ada 5 data pembanding. Kita enggak, kan. Kita cuma bilang bahwa memang harus ada data pembanding, tapi tidak sampai ke hal-hal yang sifatnya sudah kayak bisnis karena kita cuma mengatur pedoman. Sejauh ini tidak ada hal yang sifatnya nanti akan sulit dilakukan penilai. Karena kita juga pahami jangan sampai dia jadi pedoman, tapi malah nanti jadi boomerang juga kalau tidak bisa

dilaksanakan dan kemudian salah kalau tidak melakukan.

Bagaimana dengan keberadaan data pasar di Indonesia yang tidak lengkap?

Sebenarnya data pasar kan ada dua. Satu, data-data transaksi. Tapi, sebenarnya di SPI juga bilang data penawaran boleh digunakan. Cuma kadang masalahnya, saya rasa penilai sendiri tidak cukup berusaha untuk mencari data. Yang kedua, memang berbeda dengan negara lain kelihatannya data base transaksi telah tersedia dengan baik yang bisa diakses penilai. Saya rasa itu memang masih kendala, tapi tidak berarti penilai sama sekali tidak memiliki data base transaksi. Tidak begitu, dia harus lebih teliti dan lebih rajin meng-umpulkan data transaksi. Di SPI ini sudah ditambahkan bahwa data pasar termasuk data penawaran. Jadi tidak hanya masalah data transaksi. Ini realitasnya di Indonesia yang belum memiliki data base yang ter-dokumentasi dengan baik. Data penawaran itu juga dari pasar, tapi memang dia bukan transaksi. Hanya kita sedapat mungkin harus dapat data transaksi karena kalau tidak ada transaksi susah kita bikin judgement.

Apakah dengan sosialisasi ini pemaha-

man penilai sudah cukup? Sosialisasi ini hanya semacam pengena-

lan awal. Artinya, ini ada dasar penilaian baru banyak terminologi baru. Tapi kemudian untuk aplikasinya memang seharusnya di-ikuti semacam workshop. Jadi kemudian cara melakukannya, mempraktikannya, jadinya workshop. Sosialisasi hanya memberitahu ini ada perubahan.

Bagaimana tip memahami SPI 2013 ini?

Sebenarnya kalau membaca SPI bisa bosan. Melalui sosialisasi kira-kira penilai bisa tahu apa yang diatur sehingga nanti se-tiap ada kasus dia praktik penilaian menemui gini-gini dia bisa cari di sini gitu. Dan itu sebenarnya setiap internal training di kantor gitu. Misalnya, penilaian jalan tol di SPI-nya ada di mana. SPI itu sebenarnya bagian dari internal training.

Bagaimana penyesuaian di tingkat pendidikannya?

Iya, wajib malah. Mestinya nyambung. Aturannya baru, jadi harus pendidikannya bisa di-link-kan gitu. Pengajarnya kan ikut sosialisasi, jadi semestinya dia juga bisa paham. q

Page 55: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

��Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

g a L E R i f o t o

Kepala PPAJP Langgeng Subur, saat menandatangani pengesahan KEPI dan SPI 2013, dilakukan di Jakarta 25 April 2013, di saksikan Ketua KPSPI, Rengganis Kartomo dan Ketua Umum MAPPI, Hamid Yusuf.

Ketua Umum MAPPI, Hamid Yusuf, saat menandatangani pengesahan KEPI dan SPI 2013, dilakukan di Jakarta 25 April 2013, di saksikan Ketua KPSPI, Reng-ganis Kartomo, dan Kepala PPAJP Langgeng Subur.

Ketua KPSPI, Rengganis Kartomo, saat menandatanagani pengesahan KEPI dan SPI 2013 yang di saksikan Ketua Umum MAPPI, Hamid Yusuf, dan Kepala PPAJP Langgeng Subur.

Tampak pengurus Pusat MAPPI sedang mengikuti desimenasi dan Pengesa-han KEPI dan SPI 2013, Jakarta 25 April 2013.

Peserta PPL KEPI dan SPI 2013, Bogor 16 Mei 2013.

Page 56: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

�� Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

i n f o m a p p i

Loka Karya Penilai Pasar ModalPada 17 April 2013, Forum Penilai

Pasar Modal (FPPM) Masyarakat Profesi Penilai Indonesia (MAPPI)

menggelar lokar karya di Bandung, Jawa Barat. Loka karya bertajuk “Penilaian Bisnis dalam rangka Akuisisi, Penggabungan Usaha serta kaitannya dengan Pendapat Kewajaran” ini terselenggara atas kerja sama dengan Otoritas Jasa Keuangan (OJK). Loka karya ini bagian dari program Pendidikan Profesi Lanjutan (PPL) yang wajib diikuti penilai yang berpraktek di pasar modal.

Hadir sebagai salah satu nara sumber pada loka karya ini adalah Kepala Divisi Pengawasan Lembaga dan Profesi Penunjang Pasar Modal, Lasdini Purwanti. Dalam pa-parannya Lasdini Purwanti mengungkapkan, dari tahun ke tahun jumlah penilai yang ber-praktek di pasar modal terus meningkat. Pada 2011, misalnya, terdapat 148 penilai terdaftar di pasar modal. Jumlah itu meningkat men-jadi 161 penilai terdaftar pada 2012. Namun, sejak pengawasan pasar modal dan lembaga jasa keuangan beralih dari Bapepam-LK ke OJK mulai 2013, baru ada tambahan satu penilai yang terdaftar, sehingga jumlahnya menjadi 162 penilai.

Dari jumlah itu, menurut Lasdini Pur-wanti, sebanyak 97 merupakan penilai pro-perti, 25 penilai bisnis, dan 39 penilai dengan izin penilai properti dan bisnis. Namun,

tidak semua yang berstatus terdaftar tersebut aktif. Dari jumlah tersebut, yang tidak aktif sementara mencapai 22 penilai dan tidak aktif tetap sebanyak 9 penilai. Di saat yang sama, Lasdini Purwanti juga mengungkap masih adanya penilai yang tidak mematuhi ketentuan di pasar modal, misalnya terlambat dalam menyampaikan laporan PPL.

Pada 2010, misalnya, sedikitnya ada 9 penilai yang terlambat menyampaikan laporan PPL. Selain itu, tercatat ada 14 pe-nilai yang terlambat menyampaikan laporan

kegiatan berkala. Pada 2011, jumlah yang terlambat menyampaikan PPL sebanyak 2 penilai dan terlambat menyampaikan lapo-ran kegiatan berkala mencapai 12 penilai. Sedangkan, pada 2012 terjadi peningkatan jumlah penilai yang terlambat menyampai-kan PPL, yaitu sebanyak 25 penilai dan yang terlambat menyampaikan kegiatan berkala mencapai 21 penilai. Pada tahun 2013 ini, tercatat baru ada 7 penilai yang terlambat menyampaikan PPL dan 9 penilai terlambat menyampaikan kegiatan berkala. q

Maraton Sosialisasi SPIPusat Pembinaan Akuntan dan

Jasa Penilai (PPAJP) Sekretariat Jenderal Kementerian Keuangan,

bekerja sama dengan Masyarakat Pro-fesi Penilai Indonesia (MAPPI), tengah gencar menggelar sosialisasi Standar Penilaian Indonesia (SPI) 2013. SPI yang baru tersebut disahkan pada April 2013, yang merupakan hasil dari revisi atas SPI 2007.

PPAJP telah mengagendakan sosialisasi sebanyak enam kali, yang diharapkan bisa diikuti oleh seluruh penilai berizin. Pelak-sanaan sosialisasi sudah dimulai sejak Mei

dan berakhir Juli nanti, dan dilaksanakan di beberapa kota.

Sesuai jadwal, sosialisasi diawali di kawasan Puncak, Bogor, Jawa Barat untuk dua putaran yang masing-masing berlangsung selama dua hari. Putaran pertama dilaksanakan pada 2-3 Mei dan yang kedua pada 16-17 Mei. Setelah itu, sosialisasi dilaksanakan di Bandung, Jawa Barat, sebanyak empat kali. Yang pertama pada 30-31 Mei. Dua putaran sosialisasi berikutnya dilaksanakan pada 13-14 Juni dan 20-21 Juni. Terakhir, kegiatan sosiali-sasi dilaksanakan pada 4-5 Juli.

Setiap putaran diikuti sekitar 60 penilai beizin. Materinya meliputi regulasi jasa penilai publik, Konsep dan Prinsip Umum Penilaian (KPUP) SPI, Kode Etik Penilai Indonesia (KEPI), Standar Penilaian Indo-nesia (SPI), dan PPPI 18 (Penilaian dalam Rangka Pengadaan Tanah bagi Pembangu-nan untuk Kepentingan Umum).

Menurut Kepala PPAJP Langgeng Subur, setiap penilai berizin wajib mengiku-ti kegiatan sosialisasi ini. Kegiatan ini pun diperlakukan sebagai program Pendidikan Profesi Lanjutan (PPL) dari Kementerian Keuangan yang wajib dipatuhi oleh setiap

Page 57: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

��Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

i n f o m a p p i

Workshop Penilaian TambangUntuk meningkatkan kompetensi

penilai di bidang penilaian tambang, Forum Penilai Pasar Modal (FPPM)

Masyarakat Profesi Penilai Indonesia (MAP-PI) menggelar workshop penilaian cadangan tambang. Workshop yang dilaksanakan Jakarta, 30 April 2013, ini terlaksana atas kerja sama dengan Otoritas Jasa Keuangan (OJK).

Workshop menghadirkan sejumlah nara sumber, di antaranya Kepala Divisi Penga-wasan Lembaga dan Profesi Penunjang Pasar Modal OJK Lasdini Purwanti, Kasubdiv PA PPNP OJK R Yustinus Irwan Hardiyono, dan Ronald Sibarani dari PT Stania Bara Consulting.

Lasdini Purwati membawakan materi yang berkaitan dengan ruang lingkup penugasan penilaian pertambangan di pasar modal, hierarki peraturan penilaian, serta data emiten dan penilai di pasar modal. Dalam paparannya, Lasdini menjelaskan bahwa dalam menilai tambang yang dinilai adalah aset cadangan dan noncadangan. Aset cadangan mencakup cadangan tambang, areal produktif, area belum produktif. Se-dangkan, penilaian noncadangan mencakup sarana dan prasarana properti, termasuk bangunan dan peralatan kerja.

Sementara itu, pembicara lain, Ro-nald Sibarani, menjelaskan masalah yang

berkaitan dengan standar pelaporan hasil eksplorasi. Dijelaskan, di dunia pertam-bangan ada yang disebut standar Komite Cadangan Mineral Indonesia (KCMI). Kode KCMI 2011 yang dipakai saat ini merupakan produk bersama antara AIGI dan Perhapi. Kode KCMI 2011 ini berisi standar pelaporan hasil eksplorasi serta sumber daya dan cadangan mineral yang bisa dipertang-gungjawabkan. Dalam pelaksanaannya,

penyusunan laporan berdasarkan standar KCMI harus dilakukan oleh seseorang yang telah berstatus Competent Person Indonesia (CPI), tenaga ahli yang memiliki kompetensi untuk menghitung cadangan tambang.

Penyelenggaraan workshop ini meru-pakan antisipasi terhadap tingginya kebutu-han akan jasa profesi penilai untuk kegiatan penilaian di dunia pertambangan. q

penilai berizin. “Jadi, wajib hukumnya bagi penilai berizin mengikuti kegiatan ini untuk memenuhi persyaratan PPL. Kalau tidak, kami akan memberi sanksi,” kata Langgeng Subur.

Langgeng Subur berharap semua peni-lai berizin memanfaatkan kesempatan ini sebaik mungkin. Selain untuk memenuhi kewajiban, menurutnya, kegiatan ini juga bisa dimanfaatkan oleh para penilai ber-izin untuk meningkatkan kompetensi dan profesionalisme. “Jangan dianggap datang hanya untuk memenuhi kredit poin, tetapi harus mengedepankan tali silaturahmi. Saya

yakin, dengan datang ke sosialisasi ini, pasti ada peluang bisnis dari teman yang datang

untuk oper-operan klien, misalnya,” ujar Langgeng Subur. q

Page 58: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

�� Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

Page 59: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

��Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3

Page 60: Majalah_Penilai_Juni2013

�0 Media Penilai Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 20�3