Could be because of investors wondering some of the logic in the...

Could be because of investors wondering some of the logic in the video on higher tonnage throughout mining and is apart from the ambiguity of the ore sorter recovery rates .
At 7 minutes into the video it shows a diagram of two ore drives one at 2,5 meters by 3.3 meters and a larger one at 4.2 * 4.5 meters which is the new proposal
(4.2 * 4.5)/(2.5* 3.3) = 2.5 times as much rock needs to be removed from the larger ore drive for processing. That is a lot of dilution .
The costs given for the larger ore drive is $85 a tonne due to larger equipment economies of scale . The cost for the smaller ore drive is $146 a tonne
Given the narrow vain nature of the ore body all the ore should be available within the width of the smaller ore drive
85/146 = 58% lower cost per tonne for the larger ore drive without taking into account total ore drive tonnage
58% * 2.5 = 45% higher cost for the larger ore drive when taking into account the extra tonnage needed to extract the ore from the drives .

But the redeeming point of a wider ore body due to available access , is that the panels guessing (3 meters wide * 16 meters )vertically between each level(drive) which probably make up 65% of the total tonnage and width is independent of ore drive width ,and means the ore to be extracted can be drilled out faster with a twin boom jumbo compared with a single boom jumbo so that would be where the lower costs are , and it was only quickly mentioned in the video and almost as if the MD did not understand that significance !

Its hard to know if the redeeming feature of the wider ore body allowing faster mining via drilling with a TBJ as against an SBJ and mucking out with a larger LHD overcomes the dilution and extra cost of wider drives , and having to use an ore sorter without more information from the company on costs .
I would like to buy in if I was more aware of the costs per oz .........