Part A Extractor Limited commences mining operations on 1 July 2017. During the first year of exploration and mining operations, Extractor Limited explores three areas known as Green, Tree, and Frog. It incurs the following costs: Site Exploration & evaluation costs property, plant & equipment ($m) Exploration & evaluation costs intangible assets ($m) Total site costs ($m) Green 3 6 9 Tree 6 4 10 Frog 3 7 10 Total 12 17 29 On 10 January 2018, uranium is discovered at Green, because of damage continually being caused by angry goannas, it is decided in March 2018 that it is too costly to continue operations at Tree. Operations at Tree are abandoned. Operations at Frog are continuing, although no decision has been made about the commercial viability of the site. Up until 30 June 2018, development costs of $12 million are incurred at Green (to be written off on a production basis). This cost relates to the construction of plant and equipment. The site is estimated to have 50,000 tonnes of uranium. The current sale price is $3,000 per tonne. Up until 30 June 2018, 5,000 tonnes of uranium are extracted at a production cost of $2 million. In June 2018, 4,000 tonnes are sold, with 1,000 remaining on hand. The reporting date of Extractor Limited is 30 June 2018. Required: Provide the journal entries using the area of interest method. (25 marks) Part B The contents of AASB 6 Exploration for and Evaluation of Mineral Resources are different from IFRS 6. In particular, AASB 6 is more restrictive in relation to how pre-production expenditure is to be accounted for. Research on the above idea and explain: i. Why do you think that the IASB decided not to eliminate the use of the full-cost method? ii. Why do you think that the AASB decided to restrict the methods that could be used to account for pre-production costs within AASB 6?