Bingo Technical Report

On page 35 of the Bingo Technical Report, you have the tonnages and grade expectations of both the main ore shoot and Bingo North.

I am assuming that since the open pit over the ore shoot gave such positive results, and that the underground portion sadly underperformed the open pit, that earnings expectations were shot. Its more ironic, since grades are actually very robust.

But overall the grade results from the underground portion matched the Kriged results, page 34.

Note that in recent company statements, anticipated grades mentioned are an approximation of roughly half for those already obtained through drilling for Bingo North. The indicated tonnage amount of 6k is exceeded by 4k. 40% greater. Indicated grades for Bingo North exceed those for the ore shoot, so they are probably seeing grade dilution again from complex ore geometry.

http://www.goldenbandresources.com/images/file/Bingo-TR-19Jun2006(1).pdf

The Statement That Killed This Company

"and a rate of depreciation of $560 per ounce as capitalized costs of the Roy Lloyd mine are being amortized over the measured and indicated resources currently delineated."

Your eyes might have glazed over at this statement, but this is where the Waterton loan was amortized and contributed to a loss.

I would say you have to be pretty confident of your ability to produce a certain number of ounces for Q1 if you wanted to engage in this strategy of contriving a loss, simply from the fact that ore stockpiles can be drawn down to a certain extent.

But then again, we have no facts or guidance to depend on, and any information we have is obsolete.

http://www.goldenbandresources.com/html/news/press_releases/index.cfm?ReportID=203265

-F6