I'll have a guess on the loan non-repayment question, not...

I'll have a guess on the loan non-repayment question, not ramping, just an objective view from possibly an accounting and a shareholder's perspective.

Assuming $1.2m was the market valuation of the mine at the time of the transfer.

If we had kept the mine on QBL's assets then we would have had to recognise depreciation expense on the mine as well as possibly writing the value down (as Note 15 implies, we could have been seeing a decline in value of the mine as well as possibly needing to spend money to develop the mine further).

The transfer to me saves QBL the depreciation expense, development costs, and preserves the value to QBL at $1.2m, which, as an SH I am happy about. The mine would not have been any more sellable under QBL than under VAC.

Them impairing the loan does not mean it won't be repaid, a 'bad debt' can still be repaid/recovered at any time after the due date. It is most probably due to the fact that it had passed the EGM agreed date of 14th December 2012. In accounting terms, it's prudent to impair than to leave it sitting as an asset as this will give the most conservative picture of the company's financial position.

As to the question of why Volcan doesn't simply sell up QBL shares to repay the loan? It's an interest-free loan so they have no hurry to do so. I'm happy they haven't because it could mean, in my view, they view the QBL share price to be increasing in time and would not want to sell out early as it would not be in the best interest for Volcan. And as a QBL SH that sits well with me. If they felt the SP wouldn't go up any further then I'm sure they would have preferred to minimise their losses by selling out and repaying.

Those are just my opinion on why I haven't asked management for their reasons.