RE:White goes both ways...I don'T want to enter into detail about accounting standard for PP&E and depreciation of assets which is one of the most complex accounting standards but i wasn't talking about General & administrative but ratter than direct cost that will bring the assets ready for production.
I've never audit any oil and gas company so i'm not sure if their assets (cost of exploration well vs developement well) are either applying IFRS 6 on exploration and evaluation of mineral resources or if they used the more general IAS 16.
I'Ve audit mining company and it is really complex and important to determine if we have the legal right of a specific region and weither Technic faisability has been proven or not (cause their is a difference on how cost are capitalised at different stade of exploration and developpement of assets). I could see parallel between that and what oil & gas company make (exploration well vs developpement well). Accountant in that particular sector could give a better answer on that one if they used IFRS 6 or IAS 16 for the accounting part of their non-current assets.
But wheter they used IFRS 6 or IAS 16. All direct expense to acquire or built a PP&E can be capitalise (drill rig location cost, cost of preparation of the site, salary, even first estimation of decommissionning liabilities (IAS 16 par 16-17)). And then once the assets are ready for production, you began to amortize them on their predicted timeline.
Like you pointed out, a depreciation test is done ( but for PP&E, only if their is indication that a particular assets might have been depreciated) which compare net book value to the recoverable amount which is the higher of net value of sellings the assets or utility value (which is discounted futurs cash flow that will bring this particular assets). If that value is higher than we let assets at their cost. If not, the assets is depreciated.
So the "Mark down but not up" is in part true. But, their is an exception, company could use the Reevaluation method under IAS 16, par 31 and value their Non-current assets as market value (so could be reevaluate up or down). But this method is very costly cause you have to get, for land and plant, an evaluation by a professionally qualified valuers and it would bring little value to any company, so even if it would be technically possible to have non-current assets accounted as a market value, it is really rare in practice.
erf, i said i wouldn't go into detail... look like i finally did... LOL... the main point i think is that all this as nothing to do with market value but only accounting...