ECOGRAF LIMITED — Capital/Financing Update 2014

Jul 27, 2014

28 July 2014

ASX ANNOUNCEMENT

==> picture [191 x 53] intentionally omitted <==

Latest Assays Surpass Expectations

HIGHLIGHTS:

• Latest drill results again surpass all the recently announced intersections with 53m at 14.0%TGC and 54m at 8.6%TGC, including 19m at 10.4% TGC.

• JORC Mineral Resource upgrade close to completion.

• Diamond drilling to commence shortly with aim to further optimise processing flowsheet

Kibaran Resources Limited (ASX: KNL) is pleased to report the final batch of results from the recent Reverse Circulation (RC) drill programme at its Epanko deposit within the Mahenge Graphite Project in Tanzania.

All drill holes again intersected high-grade, premium large flake graphite mineralisation, with the majority encountering graphite mineralisation from surface to the end of hole. The latest results complement earlier assays that delivered significant intersections and high-grade graphite with intersected grades as high as 20.1% Total Graphitic Carbon (TGC). The drill programme doubled the strike length of Epanko graphite mineralisation to more than one kilometre providing significant upside potential to the size of the deposit.

An upgrade of the existing JORC Inferred Mineral Resource [14.9Mt at 10.5% Total Graphitic Carbon (TGC) for 1,560,000t of contained graphite] to an Indicated/Measured category is underway (refer figure 1 and note 1).

Standout RC drill results include:

• 30m at 8.2% TGC from 8m (MHRC062), including 8m at 12.2% TGC

• 54m at 8.6% TGC from 9m (MHRC063), including

  • 19m at 10.4% TGC

• 53m at 14.0% TGC from 15m (MHRC064), including;

• [Full results are outlined in Table 1]

Kibaran’s Executive Director, Andrew Spinks commented:

“These final results have again met Kibaran’s expectations in respect of graphite quality. Importantly, they allow the geological modelling to be completed in terms of grade estimation and the subsequent delivery of the resource upgrade and scoping study.

The Company is now initiating a diamond drilling program for the purpose of providing larger scale samples for further metallurgical test work to further define the optimum processing flowsheet. Testwork will include comminution tests to determine work indexes for crushing and milling sizing and design as well as provide geomechanical information for pit design: the results of which will be ultimately used in the Epanko Feasibility Study.”

The latest results support previous intersections that include:

• 78m at 8.0% TGC from surface (MHRC036) , including; 42m at 10.2% TGC

• 39m at 11.3% TGC from 2m (MHRC048), including; 12m at 14.5% TGC

• 40m at 9.2% TGC from 8m (MHRC050), including; 13m at 11.4% TGC

• 28m at 13.8% TGC from 14m (MHRC052), including; 18m at 17.0% TGC 7m at 20.1% TGC

• 22m at 12.3% TGC from 12m (MHRC053), including 12m at 15.5% TGC

(Refer ASX announcements dated 18 June, 30 June, 14 July and 21 July 2014)

Page 1

==> picture [191 x 53] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [470 x 397] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 1 – Location plan of the Epanko deposit with latest drill results

==> picture [330 x 246] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 2 – Geological Interpretation of section 9035200 mN

Page 2

==> picture [191 x 53] intentionally omitted <==

Table 1: Epanko RC Intersection Table

						Graphite Mineralisation	Graphite Mineralisation	Graphite Mineralisation	Graphite Mineralisation
Hole_ID	N	E	Dip	Azi	Depth (m)	From (m)	To (m)	Interval (m)	Grade (%TGC)
MHRC031	904328	9035506	-60	270	80	0	80	80	5.3
MHRC032	904222	9035151	-60	270	50	0	18	18	9.7
MHRC033	904225	9035150	-70	90	50	0	32	32	9.3
Includes						14	30	16	10.3
MHRC034	904227	9035197	-60	270	41	0	16	16	10.3
MHRC035	904232	9035198	-90	90	65	0	56	56	8.8
Includes						6	13	7	10.3
Includes						18	43	25	10.0
MHRC036	904220	9035100	-60	90	78	0	78	78	8.0
Includes						0	42	42	10.2
MHRC037	904245	9035274	-60	270	47	0	34	34	8.2
Includes						0	21	21	9.6
MHRC038	904293	9035401	-60	270	92	0	96	96	6.2
Includes						0	18	18	10.4
Includes						49	82	32	7.2
MHRC039	904258	9035498	-60	270	53	3	41	41	7.8
Includes						4	11	7	10.4
Includes						23	27	4	9.8
Includes						32	41	9	8.4
MHRC040	904329	9035403	-60	270	65	3	46	43	8.6
Includes						4	17	13	10.0
MHRC041	904301	9035298	-60	270	60	6	31	25	7.2
and						49	62	13	6.5
MHRC042	904307	9035239	-60	270	60	0	42	42	6.1
Includes						4	21	17	9.1
MHRC043	904380	9035500	-60	270	29	No Significant Assay (Holes Collapsed at 29m)
MHRC044	904203	9035038	-60	90	65	2	14	12	7.8
						23	37	14	6.3
						43	58	15	7.8
Includes						43	52	9	9.9
MHRC045	904319	9035116	-60	270	104	4	18	14	6.1
						27	37	10	6.1
						67	83	16	6.6
MHRC046	904324	9035156	-60	270	60	0	34	34	6.9
Includes						1	5	4	10.4
MHRC047	904430	9035500	-60	270	41	4	11	7	7.5
						24	41	17	7.6
MHRC048	905041	9035866	-60	90	60	2	39	37	11.3
Includes						8	20	12	14.5
Includes						33	39	6	15.5
MHRC050	905033	9035788	-60	90	60	8	48	40	9.2
Includes						8	21	13	11.4
MHRC052	905032	9035735	-60	90	57	14	42	28	13.8
Includes						23	41	18	17.0
Including						29	36	7	20.1
MHRC053	905038	9035689	-60	90	50	12	34	22	12.3
Includes						12	24	12	15.5
MHRC056	904282	9034524	-60	270	60	0	62	62	5.2
Includes						0	21	21	6.8
MHRC057	904240	9034946	-60	270	50	0	40	40	7.6

Page 3

==> picture [191 x 53] intentionally omitted <==

MHRC058	904283	9035101	-60	270	50	0	52	52	6.6
Includes						12	38	26	7.6
MHRC059	904265	9034952	-60	270	50	0	40	40	7.1
MHRC060	904360	9034380	-60	270	60	24	55	31	5.0
MHRC061	904410	9034380	-60	270	120	44	87	43	4.9
and						106	124	18	7.3
MHRC062	904260	9035451	-60	270	50	8	38	30	8.2
Includes						8	16	8	12.2
MHRC063	905044	9035789	-90	270	71	9	63	54	8.6
Includes						9	28	19	10.4
MHRC064	905044	9035738	-90	270	65	15	68	53	14.0

Notes for Table 1

All total graphite carbon (“TGC”) analysis undertaken by LECO at independent commercial laboratory SGS in Johannesburg, South Africa. RC Samples collected over 1 metre intervals using an industry standard 3 tier riffle splitter. Minimum intersection width 2 metres with internal waste of no more than 2 metres. Downhole lengths are reported, as true width is unknown. Azimuths are referenced to local grid. No top cut has been applied and intersection grade rounded to 1 decimal figure. Drill hole coordinates referenced to local grid WGS84 UTM36S.

JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1 Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Sampling	•	Nature and quality of sampling (eg cut channels, random chips, or specific specialised industry standard	•	The Epanko deposit was sampled
techniques		measurement tools appropriate to the minerals under investigation, such as down hole gamma sondes,		by reverse circulation (RC) holes.
		or handheld XRF instruments, etc). These examples should not be taken as limiting the broad meaning of
		sampling.	•	Sampling is guided by Kibaran’s
				protocols and QA/QC procedures
	•	Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity and the appropriate calibration of
		any measurement tools or systems used.	•	RC samples are collected by a riffle
				splitter using a face sampling
	•	Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are Material to the Public Report.		hammer diameter approximately
				140 mm.
	•	In cases where ‘industry standard’ work has been done this would be relatively simple (eg ‘reverse
		circulation drilling was used to obtain 1 m samples from which 3 kg was pulverised to produce a 30 g	•	All samples were sent SGS labora-
		charge for fire assay’). In other cases more explanation may be required, such as where there is coarse		tory in Johannesburg for prepara-
		gold that has inherent sampling problems. Unusual commodities or mineralisation types (eg submarine		tion and LECO analyses.
		nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed information.
			•	All samples are crushed using LM2
				mill to –4 mm and pulverised to
				nominal 80% passing –75 μm.
			•	Diamond core (if competent) is cut
				using a core saw. Where the mate-
				rial is too soft it is left in the tray and
				a knife is used to quarter the core
				for sampling.
			•	Trenches were sampled at 0.5m
				intervals, these intervals were
				speared and submitted for anal-
				yses.
Drilling	•	Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) and	•	RC holes were drilled in a direction
techniques		details (eg core diameter, triple or standard tube, depth of diamond tails, face-sampling bit or other type,		so as to hit the mineralisation or-
		whether core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc).		thogonally. Face sample hammers
				were used and all samples collect-
				ed dry and riffle split after passing
				through the cyclone.
			•	Diamond drilling was drilled as
				triple Tubed HQ diameter core.
Drill sample	•	Method of recording and assessing core and chip sample recoveries and results assessed.	•	The RC rig sampling systems are
recovery				routinely cleaned to minimize the
	•	Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure representative nature of the samples.		opportunity for contamination; drill-
				ing methods are focused on sample
	•	Whether a relationship exists between sample recovery and grade and whether sample bias may have		quality.
		occurred due to preferential loss/gain of fine/coarse material.
			•	The selection of RC drilling compa-
				ny, having a water drilling back-
				ground enables far greater control
				on any water present in the system,
				ensuring wet samples were kept to
				a minimum.
Logging	•	Whether core and chip samples have been geologically and geotechnically logged to a level of detail to	•	Geological logging is completed for
		support appropriate Mineral Resource estimation, mining studies and metallurgical studies.		all holes and representative across
				the deposit.
	•	Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc) photography.
			•	Logged data is both qualitative and
	•	The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections logged.		quantitative depending on field be-
				ing logged.
			•	All drill holes are logged.
Sub-sampling	•	If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all core taken.	•	All RC samples are split using a
techniques and				riffle splitter mounted under the cy-

Page 4

==> picture [191 x 53] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
sample	•	If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc and whether sampled wet or dry.		clone, RC samples are drilled dry.
preparation
	•	For all sample types, the nature, quality and appropriateness of the sample preparation technique.	•	A small fraction of samples re-
				turned to the surface wet. All sam-
	•	Quality control procedures adopted for all sub-sampling stages to maximise representivity of samples.		ples were submitted for assay
	•	Measures taken to ensure that the sampling is representative of the in situ material collected, including	•	Diamond core was cut on core saw
		for instance results for field duplicate/second-half sampling.		and quarter core submitted for
				analyses.
	•	Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain size of the material being sampled.
			•	Sample preparation at the SGS
				laboratory involves the original
				sample being dried at 80° for up to
				24 hours and weighed on submis-
				sion to laboratory. Crushing to nom-
				inal –4 mm. Sample is split to less
				than 2 kg through linear splitter and
				excess retained. Sample splits are
				weighed at a frequency of 1/20 and
				entered into the job results file. Pul-
				verising is completed using LM2
				mill to 90% passing –75 μm.
Quality of assay	•	The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and laboratory procedures used and whether the	•	Drill samples were sent to the SGS
data and		technique is considered partial or total.		Laboratory at Mwanza (Tanzania)
laboratory tests				for sample preparation, with the
	•	For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, etc, the parameters used in determin-		pulps sent to SGS Johannesburg
		ing the analysis including instrument make and model, reading times, calibrations factors applied and		for assaying. The following meth-
		their derivation, etc.		odology is used by SGS for Total
				Graphitic Carbon (TGC) analyses.
	•	Nature of quality control procedures adopted (eg standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory
		checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (ie lack of bias) and precision have been established.	•	Total carbon is measured using
				LECO technique. The sample is
				combusted in the oxygen atmos-
				phere and the IR used to measure
				the amount of CO2 produced. The
				calibration of the LECO instrument
				is done by using certified reference
				materials.
			•	For the analysis of Graphitic Car-
				bon, a 0.3g sample is weighed and
				roasted at 550oC to remove any
				organic carbon. The sample is then
				heated with diluted hydrochloric ac-
				id to remove carbonates. After cool-
				ing the sample is filtered and the
				residue rinsed and dried at 75oC
				prior to analysis by the LECO in-
				strument. The analyses by LECO
				are done by total combustion of
				sample in the oxygen atmosphere
				and using IR absorption from the
				resulting CO2 produced.
			•	Laboratory certificates were sent
				via email from the assay laboratory
				to Kibaran. The assay data was
				provided to CSA in the form of Mi-
				crosoft XL files and assay laborato-
				ry certificates. The files were im-
				ported into Datamine.
			•	Standards are inserted at approxi-
				mately a 10% frequency rate. In
				addition, field duplicates, laboratory
				duplicates are collectively inserted
				at a rate of 10% QAQC data analy-
				sis has been completed to industry
				standards. .
Verification of	•	The verification of significant intersections by either independent or alternative company personnel.	•	Senior Kibaran geological person-
sampling and				nel supervised the sampling, and
assaying	•	The use of twinned holes.		alternative personnel verified the
				sampling locations.
	•	Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data verification, data storage (physical and
		electronic) protocols.	•	Previous drilling has twinned holes
	•	Discuss any adjustment to assay data.	•	Primary data are captured on paper
				in the field and then re-entered into
				spreadsheet format by the super-
				vising geologist, to then be loaded
				into the company’s database.
			•	No adjustments are made to any
				assay data.
Location of data	•	Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drill holes (collar and down-hole surveys), trenches, mine	•	Sample locations pickedup by hand
points		workings and other locations used in Mineral Resource estimation.		held GPS.
	•	Specification of the grid system used.	•	WGS84 Zone 36 South
	•	Quality and adequacy of topographic control.	•	No coordinate transformation was
				applied to the data.
			•	Downhole surveys collected by
				multi-shot camera,
Data spacing and	•	Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results.	•	Spacings are sufficient for Mineral
distribution				Resource has been estimated with
	•	Whether the data spacing and distribution is sufficient to establish the degree of geological and grade		the available data.
		continuity appropriate for the Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve estimation procedure(s) and classifica-
			•	Drill hole locations are at a nominal

Page 5

==> picture [191 x 53] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
		tions applied.		50 m (Y) by 25 m (X) spacings.
	•	Whether sample compositing has been applied.	•	Data spacing and distribution are
				sufficient to establish the degree of
				geological and grade continuity.
			•	No compositing has been applied to
				exploration data.
Orientation of	•	Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of possible structures and the extent to	•	All holes have been orientated
data in relation to		which this is known, considering the deposit type.		towards an azimuth so as to be
geological				able intersect the graphitic mineral-
structure	•	If the relationship between the drilling orientation and the orientation of key mineralised structures is		isation in a perpendicular manner.
		considered to have introduced a sampling bias, this should be assessed and reported if material.
			•	RC holes were drilled at variable
				dips to define the geology and con-
				tacts of the deposit.
			•	Some holes were dtrilled vertical to
				test contact positions.
Sample security	•	The measures taken to ensure sample security.	•	Samples were stored at the com-
				pany’s secure field camp prior to
				dispatch to the prep lab by contact-
				ed transport company, who main-
				tained security of the samples.
Audits or reviews	•	The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data.	•	No audits or reviews of sampling or
				results have been conducted to
				date.

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Mineral tenement	•	Type, reference name/number, location and ownership including agreements or material issues with third	•	The tenements are 100% owned by
and land tenure		parties such as joint ventures, partnerships, overriding royalties, native title interests, historical sites, wil-		Kibaran wholly owned subsidiary
status		derness or national park and environmental settings.		and are within granted and live pro-
				specting licenses.
	•	The security of the tenure held at the time of reporting along with any known impediments to obtaining a
		licence to operate in the area.	•	The Mahenge project consists of
				PL 8204/2012
Exploration done	•	Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties.	•	Historical reports exist for the
by other parties				project area as the region was first
				recognised for graphite potential in
				1914 and 1959.
			•	No recent information exists.
Geology	•	Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.	•	The Mahange Project is hosted
				within a quartz–feldspar-carbonate
				graphitic schist, part of a Neoprote-
				rozoic metasediment package, in-
				cluding marble and gneissic units.
				two zones of graphitic schist have
				been mapped.
Drill hole	•	A summary of all information material to the understanding of the exploration results including a tabula-	•	Sample and drill hole coordinates
Information		tion of the following information for all Material drill holes:		are provided in body of report.
		o easting and northing of the drill hole collar
		o elevation or RL (Reduced Level – elevation above sea level in metres) of the drill hole collar
		o dip and azimuth of the hole
		o down hole length and interception depth
		o hole length.
	•	If the exclusion of this information is justified on the basis that the information is not Material and this
		exclusion does not detract from the understanding of the report, the Competent Person should clearly
		explain why this is the case.
Data aggregation	•	In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques, maximum and/or minimum grade	•	No high-grade cuts were neces-
methods		truncations (eg cutting of high grades) and cut-off grades are usually Material and should be stated.		sary.
	•	Where aggregate intercepts incorporate short lengths of high grade results and longer lengths of low	•	Aggregating was made for intervals
		grade results, the procedure used for such aggregation should be stated and some typical examples of		that reported over 1% TGC (Total
		such aggregations should be shown in detail.		graphitic carbon). The purpose of
				this is to report intervals that may
	•	The assumptions used for any reporting of metal equivalent values should be clearly stated.		be significant to future metallurgical
				work.
			•	There is no implication about
				economic significance. Intervals re-
				porting above 8% TGC are intend-
				ed to highlight a significant higher
				grade component of graphite, there
				is no implication of economic signif-
				icance.
			•	No equivalents were used.
Relationship	•	These relationships are particularly important in the reporting of Exploration Results.	•	All RC holes have been orientated
between				towards an azimuth so as to be
mineralisation	•	If the geometry of the mineralisation with respect to the drill hole angle is known, its nature should be		able intersect the graphitic mineral-
widths and		reported.		isation orthogonally
intercept lengths
	•	If it is not known and only the down hole lengths are reported, there should be a clear statement to this	•	Given dip variations are mapped
		effect (eg ‘down hole length, true width not known’).		down hole length are reported, true

Page 6

==> picture [191 x 53] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
				width not known’
Diagrams	•	Appropriate maps and sections (with scales) and tabulations of intercepts should be included for any	•	See main body of report.
		significant discovery being reported These should include, but not be limited to a plan view of drill hole
		collar locations and appropriate sectional views.
Balanced	•	Where comprehensive reporting of all Exploration Results is not practicable, representative reporting of	•	Results presented in report.
reporting		both low and high grades and/or widths should be practiced to avoid misleading reporting of Exploration
		Results.
Other substantive	•	Other exploration data, if meaningful and material, should be reported including (but not limited to):	•	Field mapping was conducted first
exploration data		geological observations; geophysical survey results; geochemical survey results; bulk samples – size and		to define the geological boundaries
		method of treatment; metallurgical test results; bulk density, groundwater, geotechnical and rock charac-		of the graphitic schist with other
		teristics; potential deleterious or contaminating substances.		geological formations.
Further work	•	The nature and scale of planned further work (eg tests for lateral extensions or depth extensions or large-	•	Diamond drilling is planned to be
		scale step-out drilling).		completed for further metallurgical
				testwork
	•	Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions, including the main geological interpreta-
		tions and future drilling areas, provided this information is not commercially sensitive.

About Kibaran Resources Limited:

Kibaran Resources Limited (ASX: KNL or “Kibaran”) is an exploration company with highly prospective graphite and nickel projects located in Tanzania.

The Company’s primary focus is on its 100%-owned Epanko deposit, located within the Mahenge Graphite Project. Epanko currently has an Inferred Mineral Resource Estimate of 14.9Mt, grading 10.5% TGC, for 1.56Mt of contained graphite, defined in accordance with the JORC Code. This initial estimate only covers 20% of the project area. Metallurgy has found Epanko graphite to be large flake and expandable in nature.

Kibaran also has rights to the Merelani-Arusha Graphite Project, located in the north-east of Tanzania. MerelaniArusha is also considered to be highly prospective for commercial graphite.

Graphite is regarded as a critical material for future global industrial growth, destined for industrial and technology applications including nuclear reactors, lithium-ion battery manufacturing and a source of graphene.

==> picture [227 x 239] intentionally omitted <==

In addition, the Kagera Nickel Project remains underexplored and is located along strike of the Kabanga nickel deposit, owned be Xstrata, which is considered to be the largest undeveloped, high grade nickel sulphide deposit in the world.

1 “This information was prepared and first disclosed under the JORC Code 2004. It has not been updated since to comply with the JORC Code 2012 on the basis that the information has not materially changed since it was last reported.”

For further information, please contact:

Company Secretary Robert Hodby Kibaran Resources P: + 61 8 6380 1003

Investor/Media Relations Rebecca Lawson M&C Partners P: +61 2 8916 6124 E: rebecca.lawson@mcpartners.com.au

The information in this report that relates to Exploration Results, Exploration Targets, Mineral Resources or Ore Reserves is based on information compiled by Mr Andrew Spinks, who is a Member of The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy included in a list promulgated by the ASX from time to time. Andrew Spinks is a director of Kibaran Resources Limited and has sufficient experience which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity which he is undertaking to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2004 and 2012 Edition of the “Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves”. Andrew Spinks consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears.

Page 7