There isn't really any such mineral as copper pyrite (unless you want to use bad form and call chalcopyrite Copper pyrite which a few do).
Hence, the Inca visual estimate for this sample (no assays or pXRF suggested?) is 34.5% of 0.5%, or, 0.17% copper. At 400m depth I'd suggest you need far more than 5m width and more like 2 to 3% Cu to be economic.
It is notoriously difficult to visually distinguish pyrite FeS2 from chalcopyrite CuFeS2. So I'd suggest waiting for assays from the lab, if they assay it, to see what is actually there.
I note that FW220001 (drilled last year) had as good or better visuals and they never assayed.
PS After all the false rumours about drilling costs last year (started by you know who) I would be very interested to see a fully costed comparison of the total true cost for this hole per metre, cf the same stat for the full program last year. I hope for shareholders sake this finds an economic ore body as it is going to end up an expensive hole. They look like they'll be drilling it for weeks!
ICG Price at posting:
1.1¢ Sentiment: Sell Disclosure: Not Held
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)