Im not a share holder, so I am not interested in emailing the...

Im not a share holder, so I am not interested in emailing the company. normally at PFS level study you are looking at no more than ~2 mining methods (maybe a third), the PF study hopefully pointing you towards a preferred single mining method, which is carried forward as the only mining method you study in detail during the DFS. It seems like a 'higher risk' mining method whereby cemented rock fill pillars are placed, instead of leaving behind rock has been selected (like i said, i havent really seen this done anywhere else). If the grade is that great and they want to recover the gold in what would otherwise be pillars, why dont they go for a mining method with 100% backfill, but at a much lower cement content compared to 10MPa CRF pillars?
I am just trying to think through what is being proposed. If you pre-mine the pillar locations, then backfill them with CRF, then you are going to have to mine back through the base of every CRF pillar to regain access to that oredrive, to re-establish it as a drilling/bogging horizon.

On another note, rock mass conditions vary spatially, and quite often mines need to leave pillars outside of the plan due to locally poor ground conditions. you dont know about these areas until you start having large, unplanned dilution or failures in that individual stope. By locking the CRF pillars one level in front of the mining horizon, you lose a lot of flexibility in being able to respond to local conditions.