Arctic territory, today, is one of the most prospective territories for oil and gas companies. Development of the Arctic Region completely requires new technological advancement, and thus calls for intense attention and support from experienced institutions and research centers. Following the USGC research made in 2008, more than 80% of perspective Arctic rersources are located in offshore. This inevitably conveys technical and legislative risks that are not experienced onshore or in conventional offshore fields. Technical risks are associated with severe climatic conditions, sensitive ecological situations and lack of field development experience from arctic territories, as legislative risks vary within the arctic countries in question. This present paper consists of two main parts - analysis of technical risks, and legislative risks influence (including taxation system) on field developments in the Russian Barents Sea and Norwegian Barents Sea. In the frame of technical analysis, risk classification system according to different Arctic Sea conditions are presented. Probability for each technical risk was assessed and included in the field development project evaluation. In order to achieve synergetic effect, valuation model of field development with technical risks were then incorporated into economic model, which includes legislative restriction and taxation. These conditions differ from territory to territory; for that matter Russian and Norway.

Current processes of globalization and integration of the companies into the world economy necessitated the unification of financial reporting to the third parties and external users, its transparency and uniformity of financial calculations and calculation procedures.International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) today play the role of a certain standard or an example of how international companies have to generate financial reports. This imposes certain obligations on the reporting procedure. Thus, on the one hand companies operate under strict rules of how and that they can be reported. On the other hand, oil and gas companies implement large risky projects, which feasibility evaluation is often difficult in the conditions of high risk and lack of the information. This situation is typical for offshore fields, particularly in the Arctic offshore, where the degree of exploration is extremely low.The present article is concerned with the real options valuation of offshore fields in the Arctic. The main point of the article is an example of the subsequent correlation of the price value of the real options and possible costs for exploration and evaluation of the field resource potential in accordance with the principles of IFRS 6 -«Exploration for and Evaluation of Mineral Resources», an accounting standard that is core to the understanding of accounting in the mining and oil and gas industries. IFRS 6 includes modified impairment testing of exploration and evaluation assets and replaced several others international standards as IFRS 8, IFRS 16 and IFRS 36.This approach allows us to demonstrate the applicabilityof ROV (Real Options Valuation) method and its application to offshore projects with a high degree of uncertainty, carried out at an early stage and, in particular, for the Arctic offshore projects. For illustrative purposes two possible deposits were taken on the shelf of the Barents Sea and the Kara Sea. For these two illustrative examples of the fields in the above sea waters in accordance with the climatic conditions, taking into account the current tax and investment regimes three types of option were designed: to stop the project, to delay the project and to expand the project.The main purpose of this work is to show the applicability of various models of real options for offshore development projects through the examples in the Arctic seas at the stage of prospecting and exploration. There is also the objective to show how the techniques of project management can be agreed under the rules of reporting standards reporting for companies operating according to IFRS 6 standard.