Anda di halaman 1dari 60

1 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.

VIII / 2013
2 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
3 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
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 Grafs: 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: media_penilai@yahoo.com
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
P
ada 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 UTAMA
4 11 Mencermati Fenomena
Harga Properti di Ibu Kota
12 14 TB Simatupang,
dan Primadona Baru....
15 18 Bila Harga Lahan
Tak Terkendali...
19 21 Tersebab Harga Tanah
Dikendalikan Pasar
n WAWANCARA
22 26 Bisnis Perumahan itu
Never Ending Story
n PROFIL
27 28 Bidan Para Master Penilai
n ARTIKEL
29 35 Strategi Profesi Penilai
dalam Mencegah Korupsi
dan Kejahatan Perbankan
n INFO MAPPI
36 Seminar Banjir dan Harga
Properti
n LAPORAN KHUSUS
37 41 Problem Daerah
Memungut PBB
42 44 Mari Bermain di NJOP
n ARTIKEL
45 51 Optimalisasi Aset Dalam
Perspektif UUPA
n INFO MAPPI
52 53 Selamat Datang USP Baru
n ARTIKEL
56 58 Implementasi
F
I
L
E

L
A
M
A
4 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
L A P O R A N U T A M A
Galaunya Bisnis
Batu Bara
Didera 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.
G
alau. 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
5 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
L A P O R A N U T A M A
harga batu bara di pasar internasional. Tren
merosotnya harga yang signifkan 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, fuktuasi 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 fuktuasi 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 Indonesia
Data 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)
2006 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
4.179
6.190
26.178
6.977
10.305
13.765
17.801
348.055
124.009
190.883
205.895
196.272
232.121
286.856
26.925
383.966
Volume Ekspor Nilai Ekspor
Grafk Volume Ekspor dan Nilai Ekspor Batubara Indonesia 2005 2012
Sumber: Diolah dari Statistik Ekspor Bank Indonesia (BI)
Bob Kamandanu
6 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
L A P O R A N U T A M A
sot, volume ekspor juga mengalami kenai-
kan signifkan. Menurut catatan BI, selama
periode 2008-2011, volume ekspor batu bara
yang terus mengalami peningkatan signifkan
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 mengkonfrmasi 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 Dunia
China 3.576 45,9
AS 1.004 12,9
India 586 7,5
Australia 414 5,3
Indonesia 376 4,8
Rusia 334 4,3
Afrika Selatan 253 3,3
Jerman 189 2,4
Polandia 139 1,8
Kazakhstan 117 1,5
Lain-lain 795 10,3
Total 7.783 100,0
Sumber: International Energy Agency 2011
7 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
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 Pengaturan
Dihadapkan 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 309
Australia 285
Rusia 99
AS 85
Kolombia 76
Afrika Selatan 70
Kazakhstan 34
Kanada 24
Vietnam 23
Mongol 22
Lain-lain 14
Total 1.041
Sumber: International Energy Agency 2011
10 Besar Negara Pengimpor Batu Bara 2011
Negara Volume Impor (Juta Ton)
China 177
Jepang 175
Korea 129
India 101
China Taipe 66
Jerman 41
Inggris 32
Turki 24
Italia 23
Malaysia 21
Lain-lain 213
Total 1.002
Sumber: International Energy Agency 2011
8 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
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 konfik 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
konfik 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
9 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
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 Visioner
Menurut 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 kualifkasi 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
112,4
109,29
127,05
115,58
122,43
112,87
122,02
105,61
117,61
102,12
119,03
96,65
118,24
87,56
117,21
84,65
116,26
86,21
119,42
86,04
2011 2012 Dalam US$ per ton
Harga Batubara Acuan (FOB)
Sumber: Dirjen Minerba, Kementerian ESDM
10 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
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
11 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
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.
D
irektur 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
harfah-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.
12 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
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
13 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
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 Miliar
Indonesia Cheminal Alumina Kalbar Bauksit 450 Juta
Bintang Delapan Energy Sulteng Nikel 282 Juta
Stargate Pacifc Resource Sultra Nikel 1,8 Miliar
Meratus Jaya Iron Steel Kalsel Besi 110 Juta
Sebuku Iron Lateritic Ore Kalsel Besi 1,16 Miliar
Indoferro Banten Besi 133,5 Juta
Harita Prima Abadi Mineral Kalsel Bauksit 2,28 Miliar
Putra Mekongga Sejahtera Sultra Nikel 1,4 Juta
Indomelt Sulsel Tembaga 700 Juta
Sumber 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
14 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
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?
D
alam 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
diverifkasi lagi untuk mengkonfrmasi benar
tidaknya proses dan prosedur kegiatan studi
kelayakan tersebut. Jika proses verifkasi
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 efsien 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
15 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
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 fow 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
16 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
L A P O R A N U T A M A
Tren Jual Beli Perusahaan
Batu Bara
Meskipun pasarnya fuktuatif, prospek industri tambang
batu bara dipandang tetap menggiurkan. Tren
pengambilalihan atau pembelian perusahaan batu bara
menjadi pintu masuk menguasai pasar.
D
alam 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
17 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
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 signifkan.
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 defnitif 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 feld (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
18 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
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 Growth
ADRO 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 Growth
ADRO 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, memfnalisasi
proses akuisisi 100 persen kepemilikan empat
konsesi tambang batu bara di Kalimantan
Timur. Keempat perusahaan yang sahamnya
19 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
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 2010
ITMG* 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 2010
ITMG* 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 mengidentifkasi 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 efsien. Sebab,
untuk membuat sebuah perusahaan efsien
dibutuhkan modal yang cukup besar. Selama
ini, imbuhnya, perusahaan yang beroperasi
saat harga batu bara tinggi kurang memikir-
kan masalah efsiensi. Ini juga peluang bagi
perusahaan besar untuk mencari konsesi batu
bara yang murah, dia menjelaskan. q
20 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
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.
S
ejarah 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-
21 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
L A P O R A N U T A M A
Tentang Izin Usaha Batu Bara
S
ebelum ada Undang-Undang (UU)
Nomor 4 Tahun 2009 tentang Per-
tambangan Mineral dan Batu Bara,
kegiatan pertambangan batu bara diatur
melalui UU Nomor 11 Tahun 1967 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 4 Tahun
2009 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 signifkan 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
22 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
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 fuktuasi
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.
U
ntuk 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-
23 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
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
24 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
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
25 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
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 signifkan. 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
signifkan. 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
konfik 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
26 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
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
fnansial 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?
27 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
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
fuktuasi 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 fuk-
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
28 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
A R T I K E L
19TH Annual Pacifc Rim Real Estate Society Conference
Melbourne Australia, 1316 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 signifcant 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, fnance 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, fnancial institutions and government bodies. Current
mine operators and potential industry participants require valuation
methodologies that provide reliable data and fgures to assist in the
assessment of value at the feasibility stage, as well as at specifc
points in time of the mine life for reporting purposes. Potential fnance
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 diffculties and valuation
risks that have been identifed 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 specifc 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 specifc 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, fanc and political risk, renders current real property
valuation methods insuffcient 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 fgures it is crucial that all direct
and indirect participants in the mining industry have full confdence
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 confdence 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 identifed 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 fndings 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 dont 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 specifc 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
29 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
A R T I K E L
19TH Annual Pacifc Rim Real Estate Society Conference
Melbourne Australia, 1316 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 signifcant 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, fnance 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, fnancial institutions and government bodies. Current
mine operators and potential industry participants require valuation
methodologies that provide reliable data and fgures to assist in the
assessment of value at the feasibility stage, as well as at specifc
points in time of the mine life for reporting purposes. Potential fnance
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 diffculties and valuation
risks that have been identifed 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 specifc 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 specifc 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, fanc and political risk, renders current real property
valuation methods insuffcient 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 fgures it is crucial that all direct
and indirect participants in the mining industry have full confdence
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 confdence 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 identifed 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 fndings 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 dont 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 specifc 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
30 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
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 frst 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 fnancial
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 classifed 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 offcialised 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 specifc 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 fow;
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 offces 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 specifc 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 specifc
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;
fnancials ex-pit selling prices, operational costs and/or
surplus trading profts (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 defnitions of these major issues
and no specifc 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
31 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
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 frst 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 fnancial
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 classifed 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 offcialised 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 specifc 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 fow;
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 offces 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 specifc 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 specifc
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;
fnancials ex-pit selling prices, operational costs and/or
surplus trading profts (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 defnitions of these major issues
and no specifc 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
32 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
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 fow 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
fow 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
suffcient information is available to quantify, with some
confdence 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 signifcant discounts to refect the uncertainty/prob-
ability of ultimately recouping the cash fows refected in the
DCF value. Diffculties 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 defning
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 fow calculation, OConnor 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 satisfed that risk can be accommodated
through a discount rate estimated by means of Capital Asset
Pricing Model (CAPM).
o OConnor and McMahon (1994) recognise the defciencies
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 specifc 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 OConnor & 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 fexibility 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 fxed 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 fgure 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 benefts
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 infuence that variable
has on the potential NPV or IRR of the project. Often assessed at a
specifed 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 metal
Market 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)
33 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
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 fow 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
fow 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
suffcient information is available to quantify, with some
confdence 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 signifcant discounts to refect the uncertainty/prob-
ability of ultimately recouping the cash fows refected in the
DCF value. Diffculties 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 defning
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 fow calculation, OConnor 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 satisfed that risk can be accommodated
through a discount rate estimated by means of Capital Asset
Pricing Model (CAPM).
o OConnor and McMahon (1994) recognise the defciencies
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 specifc 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 OConnor & 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 fexibility 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 fxed 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 fgure 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 benefts
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 infuence that variable
has on the potential NPV or IRR of the project. Often assessed at a
specifed 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 metal
Market 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)
34 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
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 projects suc-
cess.
c. The identifcation 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
projects sensitivities. Experienced manager would well aware that
a projects 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
methods simplicity.
This was further explained by Scott (2010) that in practice,
projects variables will not fuctuate one at a time, independently
of each other at a specifed 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
fuctuate 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 projects
outcome identifes the potential magnitude of project uncertainty
but reveals no indication of likelihood of occurrence.
2. Used to examine the potential project outcome under the defned
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 projects outcome.
In addition, Mun (2004) has mentioned that the inclusion of cor-
relation between projects variables can assist in defning the scenario
analysis and help determine critical components of a projects inter-
relationship that sensitivity analysis unable to identify.
Probability Simulation Analysis (Monte Carlo Simulation/
MCS)
Torries (1998) has identifed 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 infnity 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 confdence intervals for a defned range of project outcomes
including the probability of the projects 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 variables 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 models 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 models 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 infuence 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 diffculties in performing MCS calculation,
diffculties in identifying interrelationships between variables, and
diffculties 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 infexible 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 fts all
discount rate applied to all the cash fows of an investment, by sepa-
rating different streams of cash fows resulting from an investment
and discounting them separately.
Luehrman (1997) discusses that Traditional APV separates
the valuation of cash fows from business operations, which are
discounted at the cost of equity from the CAPM model, from the
valuation of cash fows generated from the fnancial 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 fows and the present value of fnancial 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 fows which can be used to identifed 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 fows of mineral
project during evaluation. This separating permits each discounting
cash fows by discount rate that are more accurately represents the
uncertainty present in that cash fow.
Analysis performed under the APV framework will provide
greater information regarding the impact of uncertainty and the value
of cash fows compared to standard NPV analysis. The separates
analysis of a projects cash fow represents signifcant 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 investors
utility function of possible outcomes and their risk tolerance. The risk
tolerance of a risk-adverse investor is defned 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 projects 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 fnancial 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
fxed 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
35 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
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 projects suc-
cess.
c. The identifcation 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
projects sensitivities. Experienced manager would well aware that
a projects 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
methods simplicity.
This was further explained by Scott (2010) that in practice,
projects variables will not fuctuate one at a time, independently
of each other at a specifed 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
fuctuate 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 projects
outcome identifes the potential magnitude of project uncertainty
but reveals no indication of likelihood of occurrence.
2. Used to examine the potential project outcome under the defned
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 projects outcome.
In addition, Mun (2004) has mentioned that the inclusion of cor-
relation between projects variables can assist in defning the scenario
analysis and help determine critical components of a projects inter-
relationship that sensitivity analysis unable to identify.
Probability Simulation Analysis (Monte Carlo Simulation/
MCS)
Torries (1998) has identifed 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 infnity 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 confdence intervals for a defned range of project outcomes
including the probability of the projects 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 variables 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 models 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 models 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 infuence 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 diffculties in performing MCS calculation,
diffculties in identifying interrelationships between variables, and
diffculties 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 infexible 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 fts all
discount rate applied to all the cash fows of an investment, by sepa-
rating different streams of cash fows resulting from an investment
and discounting them separately.
Luehrman (1997) discusses that Traditional APV separates
the valuation of cash fows from business operations, which are
discounted at the cost of equity from the CAPM model, from the
valuation of cash fows generated from the fnancial 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 fows and the present value of fnancial 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 fows which can be used to identifed 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 fows of mineral
project during evaluation. This separating permits each discounting
cash fows by discount rate that are more accurately represents the
uncertainty present in that cash fow.
Analysis performed under the APV framework will provide
greater information regarding the impact of uncertainty and the value
of cash fows compared to standard NPV analysis. The separates
analysis of a projects cash fow represents signifcant 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 investors
utility function of possible outcomes and their risk tolerance. The risk
tolerance of a risk-adverse investor is defned 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 projects 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 fnancial 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
fxed 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
36 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
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 fexibility of future management decisions
in the analysis of an assets value and by discounting expected cash
fows 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 suffcient 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 confrmed 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/fles/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 fexibility
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 Accountants 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 fexibility 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.
OConnors C and McMahon D (1994). A Producing Miners 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
Users 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_fnal_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=v
iew&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.
37 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
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 fexibility of future management decisions
in the analysis of an assets value and by discounting expected cash
fows 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 suffcient 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 confrmed 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/fles/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 fexibility
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 Accountants 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 fexibility 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.
OConnors C and McMahon D (1994). A Producing Miners 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
Users 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_fnal_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=v
iew&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.
38 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
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 Street
Vancouver, 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 fnally to those
with defned 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, insuffcient 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 affliated with DMBW, Inc. in Colorado, and works
with independent engineering and fnancial 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 insuffciently
explored, to well explored deposits which lack either continuity, or
suffcient 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 defned
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 specifc 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 identif-
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 signifcance 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 arms-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 identifed by drilling, the Income Approach can
be the most relevant, i.e.: a forecast of the after-tax cash fow 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 fnancing.
The Kilburn (1990) Geoscience Factor method, derived partially
from Woodcocks 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 infuenced by addi-
tional, subjective factors to arrive at a fair market value; the expertise
of geologists and engineers, commodity markets, fnancial 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 frst public use in 1993 and went on to prepare a
39 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
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 Street
Vancouver, 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 fnally to those
with defned 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, insuffcient 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 affliated with DMBW, Inc. in Colorado, and works
with independent engineering and fnancial 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 insuffciently
explored, to well explored deposits which lack either continuity, or
suffcient 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 defned
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 specifc 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 identif-
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 signifcance 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 arms-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 identifed by drilling, the Income Approach can
be the most relevant, i.e.: a forecast of the after-tax cash fow 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 fnancing.
The Kilburn (1990) Geoscience Factor method, derived partially
from Woodcocks 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 infuenced by addi-
tional, subjective factors to arrive at a fair market value; the expertise
of geologists and engineers, commodity markets, fnancial 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 frst public use in 1993 and went on to prepare a
40 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
A R T I K E L
modifed 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 classifed 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 refect the real explora-
tion potential. These disadvantages make it diffcult 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 Kilburns Geo-
science Method of justifable, quantitative valuations of the technical
merits of properties and concurs that all fve components of value
(geology, commodity markets, fnancial market, stock markets and
mining property markets) should be identifed separately in a valu-
ation. This is a very subjective task and only the frst (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 modifcation 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 scientifc 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 infation, although,
if applied indiscriminately to old costs, this can result in an overly
large value bonus for infation. 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 infation. 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 signifcance; 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 owners/joint
venturers relevant past expenditures plus any frmly committed
future expenditures (normally only for one budget year in advance)
but sometimes for two feld 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 defned
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
todays 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 profts interests or rights held by
the original vendor of the claims should be deducted from the resul-
tant property value before determination of the companys 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 signifcant 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 defned drill targets for showings. This is natural
in a recession, as companies focus close to the headframe. I agree
with Ward & Lawrence (1998) that infated prices paid for property
in fashionable areas should not be discounted because they refect 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 diffculty 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 fve
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 refected 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 fnal 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:
41 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
A R T I K E L
modifed 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 classifed 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 refect the real explora-
tion potential. These disadvantages make it diffcult 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 Kilburns Geo-
science Method of justifable, quantitative valuations of the technical
merits of properties and concurs that all fve components of value
(geology, commodity markets, fnancial market, stock markets and
mining property markets) should be identifed separately in a valu-
ation. This is a very subjective task and only the frst (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 modifcation 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 scientifc 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 infation, although,
if applied indiscriminately to old costs, this can result in an overly
large value bonus for infation. 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 infation. 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 signifcance; 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 owners/joint
venturers relevant past expenditures plus any frmly committed
future expenditures (normally only for one budget year in advance)
but sometimes for two feld 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 defned
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
todays 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 profts interests or rights held by
the original vendor of the claims should be deducted from the resul-
tant property value before determination of the companys 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 signifcant 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 defned drill targets for showings. This is natural
in a recession, as companies focus close to the headframe. I agree
with Ward & Lawrence (1998) that infated prices paid for property
in fashionable areas should not be discounted because they refect 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 diffculty 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 fve
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 refected 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 fnal 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:
42 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
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 fow
technique for the marginal (undeveloped) development properties,
which in the real world are transferred for signifcant 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
fnding 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 fnding 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 fnding an occurrence and the expected
cost of fnding an economic deposit. While MacKenzies data
are based on actual expenditures and measurable returns, the
cost of fnding 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 quantifable 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 frst 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 fve-
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. fnd targets (p = 0.70), or withdraw (p =
0.30); fnd ore (p = 0.70) or withdraw (p = 0.30), and in the last
year fnd 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 fnancial
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 Im 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 quantifable 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-specifc 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 valuers/users
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 confrm 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
identifable 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 companys 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 signifcant 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 frst 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.
43 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
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 fow
technique for the marginal (undeveloped) development properties,
which in the real world are transferred for signifcant 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
fnding 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 fnding 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 fnding an occurrence and the expected
cost of fnding an economic deposit. While MacKenzies data
are based on actual expenditures and measurable returns, the
cost of fnding 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 quantifable 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 frst 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 fve-
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. fnd targets (p = 0.70), or withdraw (p =
0.30); fnd ore (p = 0.70) or withdraw (p = 0.30), and in the last
year fnd 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 fnancial
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 Im 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 quantifable 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-specifc 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 valuers/users
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 confrm 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
identifable 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 companys 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 signifcant 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 frst 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.
44 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
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 specifc. 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 signifcant. 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 Identifed
Reserves a view from the feld: 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 Moneys 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 Quantifable Reserves; Paper
presented at CIM Mineral Economics Symposium, Toronto,
January 17, 1991
THOMPSON, IAN S., 1992
Valuing Properties without Quantifable 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
45 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
P E N I L A I A N P E S A W A T
Peluang Tinggi
Menilai Burung Besi
Bisnis 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.
D
engan 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 signifkan, Indonesia merupakan
pasar potensial bagi industri penerbangan.
Tak aneh jika dalam beberapa tahun terakhir
industri penerbangan mengalami pertumbu-
han yang sangat signifkan.
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 Hanaf, 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 def-
nisi, kategori dan kondisi pesawat, sertifkasi
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 dimodifkasi, untuk keperluan per-
pajakan, untuk kegunaan verifkasi 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 spesifkasi 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
46 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
P E N I L A I A N P E S A W A T
dinilai. Keempat, pesawat yang dinilai harus
terus mendapatkan sertifkasi 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 kualifkasi
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
signifkan. 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
sertifkat pendaftaran, memenuhi standar
kelaikudaraan, dan sertifkat 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
defnisi penilaian (nilai pasar, nilai selain
nilai pasar), obyek penilaian, ruang ling-
kup penugasan yang meliputi identifkasi
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,
konfrmasi penilaian tunduk pada SPI, kon-
frmasi penilai, opini nilai dalam angka dan
huruf, nama, kualifkasi professional, dan
tanda tangan penilai.
Dalam hal inspeksi fsik 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 konfgurasi 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,
modifcation 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 certifcate of registration (C of R),
certifcate 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,
sertifkasi, 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
47 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
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.
M
ulai 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-offcio Ketua Dewan Penguji),
dan Okky Danuza (ex-offcio 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 2011
Dengan 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
48 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
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 Defnisi
Dari 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
49 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
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 didef-
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 def-
nisi pada SPI 2007: Nilai Pasar didefnisikan
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, defnisi 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, defnisi
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
50 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
L A P O R A N K H U S U S
Mempraktekkan Standar
SPI 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
51 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
L A P O R A N K H U S U S
Sistematika KEPI 2007
1.0 Pendahuluan
2.0 Ruang Lingkup
3.0 Defnisi
4.0 Etika
4.1 Integritas
4.2 Benturan Kepentingan (Confict of Interest)
4.3 Kerahasiaan
4.4 Ketidakberpihakan (Impartially)
5.0 Kompetensi
6.0 Syarat Pengungkapan
7.0 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 Masyarakat
8.0 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.
S
elama 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-
52 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
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 (Confict 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 Pendahuluan
2.0 Ruang Lingkup
3.0 Defnisi
4.0 Prinsip Dasar Etik
a. Integritas
b. Obyektivitas
c. Kompetensi
d. Kerahasiaan
e. Perilaku Profesional
5.0 Panduan Prinsip Dasar Etika
6.0 Ancaman dan Perlindungan
7.0 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, obyektiftas, 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
53 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
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, defnisi 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, defnisi 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, defnisi 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
54 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
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
55 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
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.
56 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
I N F O M A P P I
Loka Karya Penilai Pasar Modal
P
ada 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 SPI
P
usat 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
57 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
I N F O M A P P I
Workshop Penilaian Tambang
U
ntuk 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
58 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
59 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013
60 MEDIA PENILAI Edisi Juni / TH.VIII / 2013

Anda mungkin juga menyukai