Kutcho Project Update

Northern Mining Conference, BC

April 28, 2011

North

American

Operations

2

3

Objective is a Growing Production Profile

Average production is 120 million lbs of copper per year*

*Assumes a positive construction decision at Kutcho and Phase’s IV/V expansion at Minto; excludes by-product metal production

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Cu

Pro

du

ctio

n (

mm

lbs)

Kutcho Minto Cozamin

Kutcho Project Overview

4

5

Project Location

100 km east of Dease

Lake

Site infrastructure:

Kutcho Camp

120 km access road

900 m airstrip

6

Growth Project - High Grade Underground Mine

Preliminary Feasibility Study completed in Feb 2011

IRR (after tax) 27%, NPV (after tax) C$155M at a 10% discount, Payback 3.4 years5

Significantly reduced environmental foot print

Reduced power consumption & costs

Proceeding with permitting and engaging stakeholders in consultations regarding development

Improved metallurgical parameters

Reduced power consumption & costs

Accelerated Esso High Grade Production

Mine Life 12 years

Mineral Reserves1,4 10.4Mt @ 2.01% Cu + 3.2% Zn

M&I Mineral Resources2,5 11.3Mt @ 2.2% Cu + 3.3% Zn

Inferred Mineral Resources2,5 1.1Mt @ 1.7% Cu + 2.0% Zn

Planned Throughput 2,500tpd

Up-Front Capital1 C$187 M

Avg. Annual Production1 35 M lbs Cu + 55 M lbs Zn

Targeted Cash Costs3,4 ~US$0.75/lb

By-products Au, Ag

(1) See news release dated Feb 24, 2011 for details and 43-101 comments (2) See news releases dated Jul 13/10 & Dec 6/10 for details and 43-101 comments

(3) Cash cost is non-GAAP measure (4) Economic Analysis calculated using these metal prices in US$: Cu=$2.75/lb; Zn=$0.95/lb; Ag=$16.50/oz; Au=$1000.00/oz (5) Economic

Analysis calculated using these metal prices in US$: Cu=$2.25/lb; Zn=$0.80/lb; Ag=$13.50/oz; Au=$850.00/oz

Kutcho Project History

2004: Western Keltic Mines (WKM) purchased the Kutcho property and conducted

diamond drilling programs over subsequent seasons

2005: environmental and socioeconomic baseline studies program commenced

2006: WKM submitted a project description to BC Environmental Assessment Office

triggering pre-application phase

May 2008: Sherwood Copper Corp. acquired 100% ownership of WKM as a subsidiary

called Kutcho Copper Corp. and proceeded with a drill program that year

September 2009: a Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) Report was completed

for the Kutcho Project and a revised report was issued in 2010 to address key

recommendations

November 2009: Sherwood was acquired by Capstone Mining Corporation and Kutcho

Copper Corp. (KCC) became a wholly owned subsidiary of Capstone

July 2010: KCC issues revised Preliminary Economic Assessment Report (PEA)

February 2011: Kutcho Project Pre-feasibility study released

7

Exploration Overview

8

2010 Exploration Highlights

Drill program from July to October

17,600 m – 34 holes each about 500-600 m deep into the Esso Deposit

Results were very good, including some of the highest results on the

project to date

These results were used to update the Esso resource calculation

The resources at the Esso Deposit and Kutcho Main Lens formed the

basis of the Pre-Feasibility Study

9

10

2010 Exploration Highlights

Work on the project during 2010 included:

Pad Building: TNES of Dease Lake and Rugged Edge of Smithers

provided workers from Dease Lake-Telegraph Creek area and

Smithers (2-4 workers periodically during the season)

Diamond Drilling: Driftwood Diamond Drilling of Smithers had 9

people on site, typically about 5 workers from Northern B.C.,

including 1 worker from Dease Lake

Core Logging for Geology And Geotechnics: 6 workers, including 3

from Northern B.C.

11

2010 Exploration Highlights

Core Cutting: 1 worker from Good Hope Lake, helped out by 1 TNES

worker from Dease Lake area

Camp Support: contractor Spatsizi Remote Catering Services (3

workers from Northern B.C.)

Site Services and Logistics: 6 workers throughout the season, all from

Northern B.C., including Dease Lake, Good Hope Lake, Smithers and

Terrace

Supply Flights and Helicopter Support: Sustut Air of Smithers and

P.W.H. of Dease Lake

Excellent work was done by all!

12

2011 Exploration Plans

June – September

5,500 m of drilling

Geophysics and prospecting

Continued environmental

baseline data collection

13

Development Overview

14

February 2011 Pre-Feasibility Study

15

2010 PEA HighlightsIssued in July 2010, the revised PEA pursued opportunities indicated in

the previous report. Key highlights included:

Significantly enhanced economic return of the project

Small starter pit followed by underground mining

Significantly reduced environmental footprint

Tailings not used for backfill will be filtered and dry stacked in a lined

facility located well away from natural drainages. No conventional

tailings storage involved.

16

PowerLiquefied Natural Gas (LNG)

Diesel Fuel Price driven by Supply – Volatile

Natural Gas Price driven by cost of production – Stable

Diesel Generators with Capital C$0.27 / kWh

LNG Generators with Capital C$0.17 / kWh

Wind Power (Audace Technology)

High Wind Density @ 10 m / sec

Operating 7 months per year

50% of power provided by Wind Turbines

Conclusion:

Utilize C$0.14 / kWh before Capital

Utilize LNG

17

High Wind Density

Planned Pit

Waste Dump

Waste Dump

Waste Dump

Dry Stack

Mill

Camp

2008 Design (KCC - Sherwood)

18

19

Andrea Creek

2011 Design (KCC - Capstone)

Planned Pit

MillCamp

Paste Fill Pad

Water

Storage

Pond

2011 PFS HighlightsThe PFS is complete and attained the following objectives:

NI 43-101 reserve of 10.4 million tonnes with an average grade of 2.01% copper,

3.19% zinc, 34.61 grams per tonne ("g/t") silver and 0.37g/t gold

A 12 year mine life

Average throughput of 2,500 tonnes per day over the full production period

producing separate copper and zinc concentrates, with by-product gold and silver

reporting to the copper concentrate

Average annual production during the full production period of 34.7 million

pounds of copper, 54.5 million pounds of zinc, 4,664 ounces of gold and 671,800

ounces of silver in concentrates

20

2011 PFS Highlights

A small environmental footprint as a result of:

minimal open pit mining (4% of the total production)

utilization of tailings and waste for underground backfill

an encapsulated paste fill arrangement for any tailings and waste

that are stored on surface

Considerable regional exploration potential including more than 13km

of known strike length of the Main-Sumac-Esso productive VMS

horizon

21

Permitting Overview

22

Kutcho Project EA & Permitting

Kutcho Project is subject to review under provincial and federal

regulatory authorities

Permitting process was initiated in 2005

Environmental and socio-economic baseline studies commenced in

2005

2010 PEA changed project scope;

reduced project footprint

2011 PFS indicates the Kutcho Project is

economically viable

23

24

BC EA process expected to take 12 to 18 months following application submission

Federal CEAA process may add to timelines

Will likely conduct concurrent permitting for critical path items

Goal is production in 2014

Initial permits must be obtained by mid to late 2012 to meet this target

EA & Permitting – Anticipated Timeline

EA & Permitting - Where we are now

Allnorth Consultants assisting with preparation of the EA Application

and finalizing the baseline data

Project Description will be submitted to BC EAO to re-initiate

environmental assessment process late April

Public consultation to share information about project and gather

input to inform the application summer 2011

Submit completed application Q4 2011

25

Kutcho In the Community

Regular project updates via direct communication with leadership,

newsletters to the community and community visits

Our door is always open – for information, questions, comments….

Work with First Nations to revisit existing agreements and move

forward towards a Socio-Economic Participation Agreement (SEPA)

26

27

Andrea Creek

2011 Design (KCC - Capstone)

Planned Pit

MillCamp

Paste Fill Pad

Water

Storage

Pond

28

Questions?

29

Forward-Looking Statements

Forward-Looking InformationThis document may contain “forward-looking information” within the meaning of Canadian securities legislation and "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the

United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (collectively, “forward-looking statements”). These forward-looking statements are made as of the date of this

document and Capstone Mining Corp. (the “Company”) does not intend, and does not assume any obligation, to update these forward-looking statements, except as required

under applicable securities legislation.

Forward-looking statements relate to future events or future performance and reflect Company management’s expectations or beliefs regarding future events and include,

but are not limited to, statements with respect to the estimation of mineral reserves and resources, the realization of mineral reserve estimates, the timing and amount of

estimated future production, costs of production, capital expenditures, success of mining operations, environmental risks, unanticipated reclamation expenses, title disputes

or claims and limitations on insurance coverage. In certain cases, forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of words such as “plans”, “expects” or “does not

expect”, “is expected”, “budget”, “scheduled”, “estimates”, “forecasts”, “intends”, “anticipates” or “does not anticipate”, or “believes”, or variations of such words and

phrases or statements that certain actions, events or results “may”, “could”, “would”, “might” or “will be taken”, “occur” or “be achieved” or the negative of these terms

or comparable terminology. By their very nature forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual

results, performance or achievements of the Company to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-

looking statements. Such factors include, among others, risks related to actual results of current exploration activities; changes in project parameters as plans continue to be

refined; future prices of mineral resources; possible variations in ore reserves, grade or recovery rates; accidents, labour disputes and other risks of the mining industry;

delays in obtaining governmental approvals or financing or in the completion of development or construction activities; as well as those factors detailed from time to time in

the Company's interim and annual financial statements and management's discussion and analysis of those statements, all of which are filed and available for review on SEDAR

at www.sedar.com. Although the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual actions, events or results to differ materially from those

described in forward-looking statements, there may be other factors that cause actions, events or results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no

assurance that forward-looking statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements.

Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements.

*Non-GAAP Performance Measures“Total Cash Cost”, “Cash flow from mining operations” and “Adjusted net earnings” are Non-GAAP Performance Measures. Such performance measures are included because

these statistics are key performance measures that management uses to monitor performance. Management uses these statistics to assess how the Company is performing to

plan and to assess the overall effectiveness and efficiency of mining operations. These performance measures do not have a meaning within GAAP and, therefore, amounts

presented may not be comparable to similar data presented by other mining companies. These performance measures should not be considered in isolation as a substitute for

measures of performance in accordance with GAAP.

30

Compliance with NI43-101Unless otherwise indicated, Capstone has prepared the technical information in this presentation (“Technical Information”) based on information contained in

the technical reports and news releases (collectively the “Disclosure Documents”) available under Capstone Mining Corp.’s company profile on SEDAR at

www.sedar.com. Each Disclosure Document was prepared by or under the supervision of a qualified person (a “Qualified Person”) as defined in National

Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects of the Canadian Securities Administrators (“NI 43-101”). For readers to fully understand the

information in this presentation, they should read the Technical Reports (available on www.sedar.com) in their entirety, including all qualifications, assumptions

and exclusions that relate to the information set out in this presentation which qualifies the Technical Information. Readers are advised that mineral resources

that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. The Disclosure Documents are each intended to be read as a whole, and sections

should not be read or relied upon out of context. The Technical Information is subject to the assumptions and qualifications contained in the Disclosure

Documents.

The following employees of Capstone, each a Qualified Person, reviewed Technical Information contained in this presentation: Robert Barnes, Professional

Engineer reviewed Technical Information related to the Cozamin Mine, Hugh Willson, Professional Geologist, reviewed the geological and mineral resource

information related to the Cozamin Mine, Brad Mercer reviewed the geological and mineral resource information related to the Minto Mine and Stephen Quin,

Professional Geologist, reviewed all Technical Information in this presentation.

This presentation summarizes some of the information contained in the SRK Consulting (Canada) “Technical Report, Cozamin Mine, Zacatecas State, Mexico”

dated March 31, 2009. Qualified Persons under National Instrument 43-101 for the Cozamin Technical Report include: Robert Sim, P.Geo., Jenna Hardy, P.Geo.,

Jeff Woods, CP, Gord Doerksen, P.Eng. The Cozamin mineral resource estimates were completed by Robert Sim, P.Geo. Sim Geological Inc. who is the Qualified

Person under NI43-101 responsible for this estimate.

This presentation summarizes some of the information contained in the SRK Consulting (Canada) “Phase IV Pre-feasibility Study” dated December 2009. The

following SRK employees are the Qualified Persons (“QP”) under National Instrument 43-101 responsible for this report: Wayne Barnett, P.Eng. – Geology as well

as resource estimates for Area 2/118 and Ridgetop; Cam Scott, P.Eng. – Waste dumps and Tailings Impoundments; Mike Levy, P.E. – Geotechnical; Dino Pilotto,

P.Eng. – Mining and Reserves; Gordon Doerksen, P.E. – Project Overview. Clint Donkin of Ausenco is the QP for the Mineral Processing and Garth Kirkham of

Kirkham Geosystems is the QP for the resource estimate for Minto North.

The Kutcho mineral resource estimate was completed by Garth Kirkham P.Geo. of Kirkham Geosystems Ltd., who is the Qualified Person under NI43-101

responsible for this estimate.