EcoGraf’s preliminary review has identified potential to lift Epanko Stage 1 production from 73,000 to 87,600 tonnes per annum, while reducing first-10-year C1 costs by 5.8%. The higher-output case remains subject to further engineering, financing work and a Final Investment Decision.
- Potential 20% increase in Stage 1 capacity to 87,600tpa
- First-10-year C1 costs estimated at US$512.3/t
- Preliminary incremental capital estimate of US$12 million
- Existing 73,000tpa case remains the debt-financing basis
- No updated NPV or IRR has been disclosed
Epanko throughput could rise to 87,600tpa
EcoGraf Limited (ASX:EGR) has found a potential 20% increase in Stage 1 production at its Epanko graphite project in Tanzania, without a material redesign of the existing processing plant layout. The preliminary value engineering review lifts the potential nameplate capacity from 73,000 to 87,600 tonnes per annum.
The higher-throughput case is not yet the company’s development or financing plan. EcoGraf said the 73,000tpa case from its February 2026 Updated Bankable Feasibility Study remains the basis for debt financing, with any move towards 87,600tpa to be settled after a Final Investment Decision.
Lower unit costs come with a preliminary US$12 million estimate
The review estimates first-10-year C1 operating costs of US$512.3 per tonne of concentrate sold, FOB Dar es Salaam, compared with US$544.0/t in the Updated BFS. That represents a 5.8% reduction. Over the life of mine, C1 costs are estimated at US$515.9/t, down 6.8% from US$553.3/t.
All-in sustaining costs are also lower in the preliminary case, at US$610.8/t for the first 10 years and US$615.4/t over the life of mine. Those figures compare with US$639.0/t and US$650.9/t respectively in the Updated BFS. The company attributes the potential unit-cost benefit to higher production, rather than to a change in the underlying ore reserve.
EcoGraf estimates the additional capital required at approximately US$12 million, comprising US$5.5 million for processing plant work and US$6.5 million for the tailings storage facility. The figure is an AACE Class 4 estimate and sits within the US$22 million contingency allowance in the Updated BFS, but it remains preliminary.
Existing ore reserves support the production case
The proposed increase is based on the unchanged Epanko ore reserve of 16.7 million tonnes at 8.2% total graphitic carbon, containing 1.376 million tonnes of contained graphite. EcoGraf said the revised mine plan relies solely on ore reserves, with no inferred resources or exploration target included in the production target.
The higher processing rate would shorten the indicative mine life to 20 years from 22 years in the Updated BFS. The review was prepared by METCPaulSam JV and identified selective additions to flotation capacity, modest classification and screening upgrades, and possible optimisation of concentrate filtration and drying. About 44% of major equipment would require modification, with most upgrades assessed as modular and low complexity.
Further studies must establish the project value
EcoGraf has not disclosed an updated net present value or internal rate of return for the 87,600tpa case. The company said the expansion option will be assessed through further value engineering and technical, environmental, social and market studies supported by a European Investment Bank technical assistance grant of up to €2 million, or A$3.2 million.
The additional output could support a single 25,000tpa HFfree battery anode material purification facility, while EcoGraf also reported positive progress in strategic equity and offtake discussions. Those discussions are being pursued alongside debt financing and engagement with midstream and downstream partners, but the filing does not turn that interest into a binding financing or construction commitment.
Bottom Line?
The engineering upside is encouraging, but the investment case still needs a bankable expansion study, updated project economics and a financing decision before 87,600tpa becomes more than an option.
Questions in the middle?
- Will the second phase of engineering confirm the US$12 million capital estimate and the projected cost reductions?
- What NPV and IRR does EcoGraf assign to the higher-throughput case once the EIB-supported studies are complete?
- Will debt providers and strategic partners support the 87,600tpa option, or remain anchored to the 73,000tpa financing case?