Crustal architecture of a metallogenic belt and ophiolite belt: implications for mineral genesis and emplacement from 3-D electrical resistivity models (Bayankhongor area, Mongolia)

Abstract

Crustal architecture strongly influences the development and emplacement of mineral zones. In this study, we image the crustal structure beneath a metallogenic belt and its surroundings in the Bayankhongor area of central Mongolia. In this region, an ophiolite belt marks the location of an ancient suture zone, which is presently associated with a reactivated fault system. Nearby, metamorphic and volcanic belts host important mineralization zones and constitute a significant metallogenic belt that includes sources of copper and gold. However, the crustal structure of these features, and their relationships, are poorly studied. We analyze magnetotelluric data acquired across this region and generate three-dimensional electrical resistivity models of the crustal structure, which is found to be locally highly heterogeneous. Because the upper crust (< 25 km) is found to be generally highly resistive (> 1000 Ωm), low-resistivity (< 50 Ωm) features are conspicuous. Anomalous low-resistivity zones are congruent with the suture zone, and ophiolite belt, which is revealed to be a major crustal-scale feature. Furthermore, broadening low-resistivity zones located down-dip from the suture zone suggest that the narrow deformation zone observed at the surface transforms to a wide area in the deeper crust. Other low-resistivity anomalies are spatially associated with the surface expressions of known mineralization zones; thus, their links to deeper crustal structures are imaged. Considering the available evidence, we determine that, in both cases, the low resistivity can be explained by hydrothermal alteration along fossil fluid pathways. This illustrates the pivotal role that crustal fluids play in diverse geological processes, and highlights their inherent link in a unified system, which has implications for models of mineral genesis and emplacement. The results demonstrate that the crustal architecture—including the major crustal boundary—acts as a first‐order control on the location of the metallogenic belt.