good day:

• the information i received yesterday from our IR was incorrect.

• it has been 7 months of waiting time for those earliest of drill results not yet reported. (not 5)

• so the date is July 13 not Sept.15, 2010 as i had reported directly from our IR.

• and those assays which are most late are from 7 holes drilled between July 13 and Sept. 15, 2010

these facts are guaranteed by our President, Frank Candido

the reports on this board suggesting that the waiting time is 11 months or more is absolutely false.

the statement of 11 holes being drilled before Sept. 15 which have yet to be reported is false. …the number is 7 ----and these 7 holes were drilled between July 13 and Sept 15 of 2010 ---(not March or April 2010 ect.)

>

>

some background: yesterday i asked Investor Relations very very specifically, and i quote:

• "what is the earliest date which we can be assured that all outstanding assays have been reported ?"

i then repeated and clarified and i quote:

• "in other words: this date therefore will give us the actual amount of months that we have been waiting for the most outstanding of assays"

i then repeated and clarified: and i quote:

• "in other words, all drilling done before this date would have respective assays reported to the public, ....what is this date?

i was determined to get a clear and definitive answer: i wanted to have verified if it indeed is 11 months ....i had my doubts ...but i wanted verification.

IR confirmed that it was understood exactly what i was asking and very appreciative of supplying the correct answer; there was absolutely no issue with clarity or interpretation.

i have been involved with education and interpretation for many years and i know very well how things can be misconstrued. this is why i put my request in three different ways, just to make sure there was complete understanding and clarity.

in the initial phone conversation IR told me the date was some where in Aug. or Sept. of 2010, making the waiting time 6 or 5 months.

IR assured me they would get back to me with an exact date, after further clarification was made of the actually drilling dates.

i was then called back by IR, who confirmed that the date was actually Sept 15, for sure, and then as quoted by IR: "....and all assays for drilling done before this date of Sept. 15, have been reported"

• there was no confusion or misinterpreation about what I was asking.

• there was no confusion or mis-interpreation about what the answer was.
  

there was no miss understanding as we had a very good conversation at length:(as pointed out previously, I obviously made sure of this: it is my nature to make sure of clarity in language, as having run a language translation and interpretation company for 20 years with my wife: believe me, i no exactly how to make sure there is no miss-interpretation)

IR simply made a mistake and should say so absolutely. (without any non-sense about misinterpretation.... i have no patience for this kind of disgusting politics)

we all make mistakes and that's fine.

And when it happens we just got to be men and admit it.

(too bad Mubarak does not do this)

>

>

now to more happy topic :))

5 months or 7 months: well this does not change my thoughts as laid out yesterday:

our company has a very bright future, as do all patient GNH investors.

i ask you to please read the following a second time for some perspective:

>

>

gentlemen and ladies:

all assays for drilling done before September 15, 2010 have been reported to the public. Currently

this leaves a 5 month window of time in which extensive drilling has continued along with bulk sampling and other analysis.

we are still awaiting some results from 5 months ago ...not 12 months !

again, the date Sept 15 is valid for having some results still pending ....not March or April

some perspective: to have a window of a maximum of 5 months for those most delayed of assays in such an extensive drilling program is not an outstanding characteristic, particularly when considering the level of integrity and comprehensive sampling type, which is being undertaken by the company.

do you want to be bought our by Peter Monk? …then you better understand that all questions must be answerable by his advisors ...and yes, are man Tilsley will be able to provide these answers very favorably because of the integrity of our drilling program, which is directly related to the way we process the results from that drilling... not just good results are necessary ...but uncompromising facts supporting those results must be readily available ....this also sets the fundamental ground work for a meaningful resource estimate.

lastly, in my 30 years of involvement with junior explorers, i have seen delays in assays running past 5 months in various circumstances: in our case, the delay has most just cause, considering the mitigating lab circumstances together with the extensive protocol for assays from a very fertile gold property.

Also: the gold in the ground, which is being found in several different areas of an impending belt, must be reported on in context to the applicable zones.

Cheers and sleep well, all patient investors will be very happily rewarded.

danny