Kutcho Project Update
Northern Mining Conference, BC April 28, 2011
North
American
Operations
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 Production (mm lbs)
Kutcho Minto Cozamin
Kutcho Project Overview
Project Location
100 km east of Dease Lake
Site infrastructure:
Kutcho Camp
120 km access road 900 m airstrip
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
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
Exploration Overview
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
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.
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!
2011 Exploration Plans
June – September 5,500 m of drilling
Geophysics and prospecting
Continued environmental
baseline data collection
Development Overview
February 2011 Pre-Feasibility Study
2010 PEA Highlights
Issued 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.
Power
Liquefied 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
Planned Pit
Waste Dump Waste Dump
Waste Dump
Dry Stack
Mill Camp
2008 Design (KCC - Sherwood)
Andrea Creek
2011 Design (KCC - Capstone)
Planned Pit
Mill Camp
Paste Fill Pad
Water Storage Pond
2011 PFS Highlights
The 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
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
Permitting Overview
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
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
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)
Andrea Creek
2011 Design (KCC - Capstone)
Planned Pit
Mill Camp
Paste Fill Pad
Water Storage Pond
Questions?
Forward-Looking Statements
Forward-Looking Information
This 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
Compliance with NI43-101
Unless 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 onwww.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.
