Capstone Mining Corp.

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA - Capstone Mining Corp. (CS: TSX) today announced that its wholly owned subsidiary, Kutcho Copper Corp., has received the results of a revised Preliminary Economic Assessment ("2010 PEA") completed by JDS Energy & Mining Inc. ("JDS") on its Kutcho Project in north-western BC. The 2010 PEA followed through on several opportunities identified in the 2009 preliminary assessment, such as enhanced metallurgical performance and reductions in power expenditures. In addition, the review optimized capital and operating expenditures as well as production schedules. All of these initiatives significantly enhanced the economic return of the project and support advancing the project towards completion of a pre-feasibility study, permitting and stakeholder consultations.

Highlights of PEA
The 2010 PEA brings the Kutcho Project significantly closer to a viable development option since it has improved the key economic performance indicators and provides an attractive return on investment. Following are the highlights of the 2010 PEA (with all amounts in C$ unless otherwise stated):

• The Net Present Value (after tax) at a 10% discount rate is $77 million at US$2.25/lb of copper;
• The IRR (after tax) is 22%, with a payback period of 3.7 years;
• Total cash costs* of US$1.14 per pound of payable copper, net of by-product credits and including selling costs;
• Pre-production capital costs of $134.2 million, including a 15% contingency;
• Small scale starter pit followed by underground extraction of the majority of the mill feed;
• Mill feed of 10.9 million tonnes with an average grade of 2.01% copper, 2.80% zinc, 29.8 grams per tonne ("g/t") silver and 0.36g/t gold, of which 10.1% is in the inferred category (see comments below);
• Average annual throughput of 2,500 tonnes per day over a 12 year mine life producing separate copper and zinc concentrates, with by-product gold and silver reporting to the copper concentrate;
• Average annual production of 35.5 million pounds of copper, 39.8 million pounds of zinc, 5,425 ounces of gold and 480,000 ounces of silver in concentrates over the 12 year mine life;
• Significantly reduced environmental footprint as a result of minimal open pit mining (4% of the total production), and utilization of tailings and waste for backfill underground, as well as an encapsulated dry-stack arrangement for any tailings that are stored on surface;
• Successfully increased copper recovery by 4% and optimized grinding so that mill power consumption fell by 26%;
• Recommends advancing to a preliminary feasibility study.

"Given the scarcity of high-grade North American copper deposits, Capstone is pleased that the robust economics of Kutcho Project support advancing to the pre-feasibility stage and potentially into production," said Darren Pylot, CEO of Capstone. "The high grade and low costs associated with the Kutcho Project would complement our existing North American production from the Cozamin and Minto mines."

"The improvements in energy costs, metallurgical performance and underground mining successfully demonstrate that the Kutcho Project has the potential to be a long term, financially rewarding, sustainable operation," said Stephen P. Quin, President of Capstone. "By re-scoping the project as a shallow underground mining operation focused on high grades, we have significantly reduce the environmental footprint of the project and now, with the improved power costs, recovery, grinding, and production schedules, we have positioned the Kutcho project to be a competitive copper producer for Capstone," he said. "With annual production forecast at approximately 36 million pounds of copper and 40 million pounds of zinc, along with by-product silver and gold, total cash costs* after by-product credits are estimated at US$1.14 per pound of copper. Opportunities for further optimization have been identified, and will be addressed in a pre-feasibility study."

Kutcho Preliminary Economic Assessment Summary

Changed Approach

The 2010 PEA supersedes and replaces prior development options, which should no longer be relied upon. The principle changes from prior studies include increased copper recovery, decreased mill power consumption (by optimizing the grinding circuit), decreased unit power expenditures (by replacing diesel generators with liquefied natural gas generators), accelerated Esso high grade production (by investing in a dedicated access ramp from surface rather than waiting to develop a ramp from the bottom of the Main deposit to the Esso deposit), and utilizing hydraulic sand fill rather than paste fill (which significantly reduced capital expenditures).

Geology & Mineralization

The Kutcho property contains three known Kuroko-type volcanogenic massive sulphide ("VMS") deposits as well as numerous other indications of potential for additional mineralization. The three known deposits are aligned in a westerly plunging linear trend and, from east to west, they are called the Main, Sumac, and Esso deposits. The largest of the three, the "Main" deposit, comes to surface near the eastern end of this trend, whereas the "Esso" deposit occurs at depths about 400-600m below surface at the western or down plunge end of the trend (as it is currently known). The Sumac deposit lies between the Main and Esso deposits both laterally and vertically, but has seen only cursory drilling. The mineralized trend is open down plunge and along strike, but is poorly explored, indicating exploration opportunities for the future.

Mineral Resources

The mineral resources for the Kutcho Project were estimated by Garth Kirkham, P.Geo., an independent Qualified Person as defined by National Instrument 43-101 ("NI 43-101") and were reported in a news release dated February 9, 2009 but are summarized below for convenience. Readers should review that news release for additional information, including the contribution of each deposit to the overall mineral resource, the mineral resource estimates at different cut-off grades, the parameters used in the estimate and the required NI 43-101 disclosure.

Class	Tonnes (000's)	Grade					Contained Metal
		Copper (%)	Zinc (%)	Gold (g/t)	Silver (g/t)	Copper Equiv.(%)(2)	Copper (millions lb)	Zinc (millions lb)	Gold (000s oz)	Silver (000s oz)
Measured (M)	5,421	2.15	2.86	0.34	31.4	3.70	256.6	341.8	59	5,482
Indicated (I)	4,994	2.14	2.83	0.39	33.5	3.74	235.8	312.0	62	5,376
M & I	10,415	2.14	2.85	0.36	32.4	3.72	492.4	653.8	121	10,857
Inferred	1,893	2.09	2.93	0.46	33.6	3.78	87.3	122.4	28	2,047

(1) Numbers may not total due to rounding
(2) Equivalent copper grade was calculated using these metal prices in US$: Cu=$1.50/lb, Zn=$0.50/lb, Ag=12.00/oz, Au=$700.00/oz

Metallurgy

As is common for VMS deposits, the mineralogy of the deposits comprising the Kutcho Project is fine grained and requires a relatively fine primary grind to produce zinc that is followed by a fine regrind to produce the copper concentrate with reasonable recoveries and concentrate grades. During 2010, extensive test work was completed on grinding, where the initial grind was coarsened from 40 microns to 60-78 microns and regrinding which was increased from 20 microns to 38 microns. In addition, a promoter that was more selective for copper was tested with good results. This metallurgical program resulted in higher recovery, decreased concentrate grade, a major decrease in power consumption and an increase in reagent operating expenditures. The test work utilized core that was stored in nitrogen to minimize the risk of oxidation. Based on the results of this test work, the 2010 PEA uses the following parameters.

Metal	Assumed Recovery	Assumed Copper Concentrate Grade	Assumed Zinc Concentrate Grade
Copper	88%	25.7%
Zinc	70%	1.5%	54.3%
Gold	52%	2.71 g/t
Silver	55%	242g/t

As discussed in the opportunities section below, there is potential to further improve metallurgical performance, which could benefit the project economics. All core drilled in the Main deposit in 2008 is stored in non-oxidizing conditions and is available for the next round of test work. New core will need to be collected for the Esso deposit.

Mine Plan

The mining resource is summarized by deposit and mining method in the table below. The Main and Esso deposits vary in dip from 30-70 degrees and in width from 3-20m. The Main deposit essentially outcrops on surface and extends to depth of approximately 250m below surface, while the Esso deposit lies approximately 1,500 m to the west and extends to a depth of 400-600m below surface.

A small starter pit will be pre-stripped in Year -1 and will provide ore in Year 1 while the underground mine is being developed. Two underground mining methods are proposed: mechanized cut & fill ("MCF") for the shallow dipping mineralization, and sublevel long-hole ("LH") stoping with backfill for those blocks amenable to bulk mining. The initial pre-production development period is estimated to 18 months. During the first year, mine production from the Main deposit ramps up to 2,500tpd. Production from the Esso deposit commences in Year 3 and continues into Year 8. The Main deposit then provides mill feed from Years 9 to the end of mine life in Year 12.

Mining Area & Method*	Tonnes	Cu %	Zn %	Ag g/t	Au g/t	Eq. Cu %
Main LH	3,056,439	1.84	2.41	27.89	0.29	2.94
Main MCF	4,793,260	1.98	2.64	28.31	0.31	3.18
Esso LH	1,436,238	2.10	3.43	34.46	0.45	3.66
Esso MCF	1,209,563	2.49	4.08	37.45	0.61	4.35
Main - Starter Pit	446,215	1.88	1.64	23.86	0.26	2.65
Grand Total	10,941,715	2.01	2.80	29.80	0.36	3.28

Of the material within the mine plan, 21.1% is measured, 68.8% is indicated and 10.1% is in the inferred category. Mineral Resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. Mineral resource estimates do not account for mineability, selectivity, mining loss and dilution. These mineral resource estimates include inferred mineral resources that are normally considered too speculative geologically to have economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves. There is also no certainty that these inferred mineral resources will be converted to measured and indicated categories through further drilling, or into mineral reserves, once economic considerations are applied.

Production Summary

Life of mine production is summarized below.



Waste Management Plan

Capstone's commitment to significantly reduce surface disturbance, which is a major benefit to abandonment and restoration plans, continued to be utilized in the 2010 PEA. Tailings, after extraction of recoverable metals, will be either filtered and disposed of underground as hydraulic backfill or filtered and dry stacked within a lined facility in order to minimize potential leakage and oxidation. The dry stack tailings facility will be located well away from natural drainages. There will be no conventional tailings storage involved. Underground mine development will generate waste rock, the majority of which is expected to be not potentially acid generating ("non-PAG") rock that can be utilized during the construction of civil works and the tailings berm. The remainder of the non-PAG waste and all of the potentially acid generating ("PAG") waste will be stored underground. The small starter pit will be backfilled with tailings and likely covered with non-PAG waste to eliminate potential for acid generation.

Environmental Considerations

The Kutcho Project is not permitted for development or production. In order to re-initiate the permitting process, the PEA will be used as the basis to re-engage the regulators and stakeholders, including First Nations.

Capital Cost

Direct capital costs were estimated at C$93.8 million, including C$18.0 million of off-site infrastructure. Indirect costs and a 15% contingency bring the initial capital cost to a total of C$134.2 million. The direct capital includes savings generated by the purchase of a used processing facility with the fixed plant components, and exclude capital leases included in operating costs below.

Operating Costs

Total operating costs, including capital leases carried as an operating expense, are estimated in the 2010 PEA as C$66.64 per tonne of ore processed, broken down as follows:



Economic Analysis

The economic assessment in the PEA is preliminary in nature and uses inferred mineral resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves, and there is no certainty that this preliminary economic assessment will be realized. The inferred mineral resource used in the mine plan is 10.1% of the total life of mine ("LOM") mineral resource.

One LOM price scenario was evaluated; the "Base Case" used constant prices designed to approximate long term projections, with no escalation or de-escalation going forward. The Canadian or US$ exchange rate is held constant at a value of 1.15, which is consistent with the three year trailing average correlation between the US$/C$ exchange rate and the US$ copper price. The results of the economic analysis are summarized below:

Item	Unit	Base Case
Copper Price	US$/lb	$2.25
Zinc Price	US$/lb	$0.80
Gold price	US$/oz	$850
Silver price	US$/oz	$13.50
Exchange rate	C$:US$	$1.15:$1.00
Unit Mining Costs	$/t milled	$29.23
Unit Milling Costs	$/t milled	$20.17
Unit G&A and Site Services	$/t milled	$11.66
Unit Capital Lease Costs	$/t milled	$3.29
Unit Total Operating Costs	$/t milled	$64.35
Unit Total Operating Costs* (including royalties)	$/t milled	$66.64
Total Cash Costs* (after  Zn, Au, Ag credits and offsite costs)	US$/lb Cu	$1.14
Total Capital (excluding sustaining capital, capital leases and closure)	C$M	$134.2
NPV10% Pre Tax	C$M	$123
NPV10% After Tax	C$M	$77
IRR Pre Tax	%	26%
IRR After Tax	%	22%
Payback Period (After Tax)	Years	3.7

Sensitivity Analysis

Sensitivity analysis was carried out using metal prices, mill head grade, capital costs and operating costs as variables. Each variable was changed independently. Sensitivities were generated using the NPV@10% discount rate as the measure of project performance. The net present value ("NPV") of the project is most affected by the price of metal or parameters directly affecting revenue such as metal recovery, exchange rate and head grade. Also, project performance is more sensitive to operating than capital costs. These results identify areas on which a preliminary feasibility study can focus in order to effect positive changes to economic performance of the Kutcho project such as metallurgical recovery of zinc and increased copper concentrate grade, as well as operating cost control, can have a marked effect on the project. Capital costs have a relatively small impact on NPV and may be in part a result of using capital leasing to reduce the amount of preproduction capital and in effect moving these burdens to the operating side.

Risks & Opportunities:

Aside from the usual risk associated with the advancement of a mineral project towards a production decision, such as metal prices, resource continuity, mineability, construction risk, capital and operating cost risk, the principal risk related to the Kutcho Project is confirmation of the metallurgical parameters used in the 2010 PEA. Additional metallurgical test work is required during the pre-feasibility study to confirm these estimates and potentially enhance the performance of the project by increasing zinc recovery and copper concentrate grade, as well as lower reagent operating expenditures.

The two greatest opportunities to enhance the economics of the project are increased metallurgical recoveries and utilizing a cheaper power supply. These opportunities at Base Case metal prices have been quantified below:

1. The utilization of wind power, small hydro and/or connection to the BC Hydro grid have good potential of decreasing unit power costs from $0.16 / kWh to $0.12 / kWh, which increases Base Case net present value at a 10% discount rate ("NPV10%") by $6 million to $83 million and the internal rate of return ("IRR") from 22% to 23%;
2. A 4.6% increase in copper concentrate grade from the current estimate of 25.7% to 30.3% increases the NPV10% to $85 million and the IRR to 23%;
3. A 4% increase in zinc recoveries from the current estimate of 70% to 74% increases the NPV10% to $81 million and the IRR remains at 22%;
4. The Esso deposit remains open to expansion, while the lower grade Sumac deposit is only drilled with 11 wide-spaced holes, two of which have more attractive grades. Exploration success in Esso and/or Sumac could result in increased mineral resources and mineral reserves;
5. There is potential for the discovery of additional deposits outside of the three known deposits within the Kutcho property.

Looking Forward
With the 2010 PEA in hand, Kutcho Copper has now provided a benchmark against which to more thoroughly evaluate the potential economics for the advancement and development of the Kutcho Project. From the sensitivities and risks and opportunities discussed above, it is clear that the principal focus should be on continuing to enhance the metallurgical performance of the Kutcho Project and evaluating options for lower cost power.


Technical Report
The full PEA, prepared as a NI 43-101 compliant Technical Report, will be filed under Capstone's profile on SEDAR at www.sedar.com and available on Capstone's website at
http://capstonemining.com/i/pdf/2010-07-06_KPEA.pdf




For further information about Capstone, please contact:
Darren Pylot, Vice Chairman & CEO or Stephen Quin, President
Or Zobeida Slogan, Investor Relations, at (604) 684-8894 or toll free at (866) 684-8894 or e-mail Capstone at:
info@capstonemining.com


Quality Assurance
The technical information in this news release has been prepared in accordance with Canadian regulatory requirements set out in National Instrument 43-101 and reviewed by Stephen P. Quin, P. Geo., President of Capstone Mining Corp. The PEA was prepared with input from the following: Michael Makarenko, P.Eng., JDS Energy & Mining Inc.; Wayne Corso, JDS Energy & Mining Inc.; Bob Princewright, P. Eng., JDS Energy & Mining Inc.; Ali Sheykholeslami, P.Eng., JDS Energy & Mining Inc.; Garth Kirkham, P. Geol., Kirkham Geosystems Inc.; David Hendriks, P.Eng., Techpro; and Brad Mercer, P. Geol., Capstone Mining Corp. who are responsible for certain sections of the PEA as detailed in the PEA.

Forward-Looking Statements
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.

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 mineral 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 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. The Company provides 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 Costs" and "Unit Total Operating Costs" are Non-GAAP Performance Measures. These 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.