Regional target generation for porphyry Cu–Mo systems in the

Erdenet area, Mongolia

Steven D. Batty* Hajime Hishida Michiteru Kai
Fugro Airborne Surveys Pty Ltd., Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corp. Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corp.
Australia Japan Japan
sbatty@fugroairborne.com.au hishida-hajime@jogmec.or.jp kai-michiteru@jogmec.or.jp

Dambiisuren Bold
Mineral Resources Authority of Mongolia
Mongolia
dambii_bold@yahoo.com

prospective, Western Erdenet area and the identification

SUMMARY of porphyry Cu–Mo deposits in 2001.

A regional structural interpretation was undertaken from
an integrated study of high-resolution airborne
geophysics, JERS-1/ SAR and geological data around the
Erdenet porphyry Cu–Mo deposit in northern Mongolia.
Geophysical signatures of the Erdenet deposit have been
identified and extrapolated regionally.
The district-scale area was divided into five domains
based on a combination of structural and geophysical
character. The most prospective domain contains
numerous concentric, high to low magnetically zoned
bodies, that represent igneous plutons of the Selenge
Complex and a series of discrete low or remanently
magnetised bodies of the younger Erdenet Complex
porphyries. The domains are delineated or enveloped by
a series of major regional fault or shear zones, with
approximate N-, W- or NW-trends. The porphyries of the
Erdenet Complex appear to align along a NW-trending
sub-domain boundary.
This phase of the project involved the acquisition and
interpretation of a 5600 km2 area of high-resolution
(250 m line spacing, N-S flight lines) airborne magnetic
and radiometric data. Integration with data from a
regional JICA/ MMAJ study assisted in developing a
more accurate local structural framework from the
airborne geophysics. From the structural interpretation
and observed geophysical response it is possible to
identify features associated with the distribution of
known mineralisation and to generate new mineral
exploration targets. Consequently, areas for ground
verification, IP surveys and drilling were selected.

Major ‘late’ W-trending, left-lateral transpressional

structures, such as the Vitim Suture Zone, dominate the
region and appear to control the distribution and
orientation of the magnetic/structural domains.
Application of a Riedel, simple shear ellipsoid model,
suggests that NW-trending structures that appear to
control the current position of the Erdenet Complex
porphyries are equivalent to X or P shears.

Target areas were delineated based on structural and/or

litho-magnetic features. Subsequent ground verification,
IP surveys and drilling have tested some of these targets
and identified significant hydrothermal alteration.
Key words: Mongolia, aeromagnetic survey, porphyry
Cu–Mo, regional structural targeting
Figure 1. Approximate location of the JICA/ MMAJ
regional study (green ellipse), on a litho-tectonic map of
Mongolia (Badarch et al, 2002). The main area of interest
for district- and prospect-scale exploration associated with
the geophysics is around the red circle.
GEOLOGICAL SETTING

INTRODUCTION Mongolia is located at the eastern end of the 2000 km

The Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)
and Metal Mining Agency of Japan (MMAJ) started a
regional mineral exploration project in northern
Mongolia in 1999, in cooperation with the Mineral
Resources Authority of Mongolia (MRAM), Figure 1.
One aspect of this broad project focused on the
long, Central Asian Fold Belt (Altaids), between the
Siberian Craton in the north and the Tarim and Sino-
Korean Cratons in the south (Figure 1). The geology of
Mongolia is both varied and complex, with high
potential for numerous mineral commodities. The
Tuva-Mongol terrane is the most relevant to this study
and is thought to have been affected by arc magmatism

ASEG 17th Geophysical Conference and Exhibition, Sydney 2004. Extended Abstracts
Target generation, porphyry Cu–Mo systems in the Erdenet area, Mongolia
associated with northward subduction of the Mongol-
Okhotsk Basin beneath the Siberian Craton followed by
continental collision. Intrusion of porphyry Cu–Mo
deposits are thought to be related to acid igneous
activity of magma arcs and the Au deposits related to
plutonic rocks (eg, Jargalsaihan et al, 1996; JICA and
MMAJ, 2001; Badarch, et al, 2002).
The Erdenet mine is located in the study area.
Production (JICA and MMAJ, 2001) in 1998 was
22.6 Mt of ore (average grade of 0.695% Cu, and
0.021% Mo) and in 1999, 22 Mt of ore were scheduled
to be produced at an average grade of 0.695% Cu and
0.019% Mo. Yearly Cu contents were 126 000 t at a
recovery rate of 82.5%.
Permian–Triassic volcanic and sedimentary rocks
overlie Precambrian to Early Palaeozoic basement units
in the vicinity of the Erdenet mine. These units are
intruded by Late Permian (~290-260 Ma) Selenge
Complex that consists of granite, granodiorite, syenite,
diorite and gabbro. Late Permian to Early Triassic
(~250-220 Ma) intrusions of the Erdenet Complex
(granite and granodiorite porphyry) occur at the
intersection of NW-, N- and E-trending tectonic
lineaments and are associated with Cu–Mo
mineralisation.
METHODOLOGY
An initial regional-scale interpretation based on remote
sensing (JERS-1) imagery enabled the development of a
broad structural and geological framework. Subsequent
interpretations at district- and prospect-scales are built
on this knowledge. From the regional-scale study, the
position of the W-trending, Vitim Suture Zone (VSZ)
shown in Figure 2 is interpreted. The VSZ defines the
northern boundary of the district-scale study area and is
inferred to be a transpressional, left-lateral structure,
which is in agreement with, eg, Badarch et al, (2002).
Figure 2. Position of the district-scale project area (green
box) and airborne geophysical survey (colour insert)
overlain on a regional panchromatic JERS-1/ SAR image.
The district-scale interpretation area that includes the
airborne geophysical data has been used to locate major
structures and delineate approximate boundaries of the
ASEG 17th Geophysical Conference and Exhibition, Sydney 2004.
Batty, Hishida, Kai and Bold
Selenge and Erdenet complexes. However, detailed
litho-magnetic interpretation was beyond the scope of
this study.
Figure 3 summarises the subdivision of the district-scale
project area into five broad domains. These domains
are based on the recognition of structural and
lithological coherency and/or similarity. The
geophysical response and structural character of domain
1 is unknown and the domain is defined simply as the
area north of the VSZ.
Figure 3. Distribution of possible litho-structural domains
within the district-scale study area (geophysical survey
areas, yellow boxes). Domains 2A and 2B are interpreted
as predominantly intrusive igneous complexes and the
most likely areas to host Erdenet Complex porphyries.
The litho-magnetic components of domain 2 contain
multiple intrusive or zoned igneous units whereas the
litho-magnetic components of domain 3 appear to
represent predominantly Triassic–Jurassic volcanic and
sedimentary units. Both of these domains can be
subdivided into sub-domains A and B as they exhibit
significantly different structural trends.
The dominant structural trend in domain 2A is W,
defined by the elongate axes of sub-elliptical intrusive
bodies, whereas in domain 2B, the trend of intrusive
bodies and linear magnetic signatures are predominantly
NE. The dominant structural trend in domain 3A is
NW, whereas in domain 3B the trend is N. However,
the linear magnetic signatures in domain 3B have a
significant sinusoidal appearance that possibly indicates
N-S compression. The regular distribution of linear
magnetic signatures characteristic of domain 3 may
represent inclined inter-layered volcanic or sedimentary
units or the development of steep, upright, tight or
isoclinal folds.
From remote sensing data, it is possible to infer a sub-
division of domain 4. From the geophysical data,
domain 4A consists of a sequence of predominantly N-
trending units. In the east, units appear to represent
zoned intrusive bodies, while in the west they appear to
relate to a series of folded volcanic or sedimentary units
and even surficial Quaternary deposits. Unfortunately
there are no geophysical data to accurately constrain the
Extended Abstracts
Target generation, porphyry Cu–Mo systems in the Erdenet area, Mongolia
litho-structural characteristics of domain 4B. However,
a series of sub-circular structures are inferred, that
further subdivide domain 4B. These structures may
represent a series of ‘early’ thrusts as domain 4B
propagates to the NW, and/or may represent a series of
‘late’ normal faults if the apparent compressional
regime is relaxed. A major, broad NW-trending high-
strain zone separates domain 4 from domains to the
east.
Domain 5 consists of N-trending magnetic units with a
dominantly zoned igneous character. It appears to be
separated from domain 4 by a major NW-trending shear
zone that possibly affects the VSZ in the north.
Although the area appears to be structurally complex, it
is possible to summarise at least the latest phase(s) of
deformation in the area by the application of a simple
shear strain ellipsoid. The basic geometry and principal
compression direction are based on the geometry and
kinematics from obvious large-scale curvilinear
features, such as the VSZ. Figure 4 summarises the
main structural components that could occur within a
left-lateral, transpressional setting.
Figure 4. Possible geometry of faults with respect to a
regional transpressional strain ellipse, with a left-lateral
displacement and NE-SW compression.
The principal compression direction for the strain
ellipsoid model is inferred to be NE-SW. The dominant
primary shear zones in this model would trend NW and
coincide with the main boundaries of domain 2A.
Applying the same stress regime and ellipsoid to these
sub-structures, it is possible to generate the WNW-
trending structures that coincide with the main Erdenet
Complex mineralised porphyry trend. Even though we
are stepping down through different structural scales,
from regional, district to prospect, the same principles
apply and appear to remain valid. Minor faults of
varying orientation are recorded throughout the domain.
Many of these minor faults are perpendicular to the
ASEG 17th Geophysical Conference and Exhibition, Sydney 2004.
Batty, Hishida, Kai and Bold
main NW-trend or to the boundaries of weakly
deformed, sub-circular igneous units. We infer that
many of these minor faults are local accommodation
structures with a probable extensional component, or fit
with a subsidiary fault direction within the ellipsoid
model.
This simple shear model appears to be able to account
for most of the observed (at least ‘late’) structural
trends. To determine whether this simple model is
correct, it would be useful to constrain the relative age
of development of at least some of the main structures.
One possibility is that many of these structures are long-
lived and may actually have been active and at least
partially controlled emplacement of the Erdenet
Complex porphyry system. Alternatively, they may
post-date porphyry emplacement and simply re-align
original intrusive relationships.
Using a combination of the geophysical signatures for
porphyries and their apparent structural controls, a
series of simple structural models were developed to
derive a number of significant exploration targets
(Figure 5).
Figure 5. Image of the first vertical derivative of the total
magnetic intensity, reduced to the pole. The red boxes
indicate areas with inferred mineral potential based on
characteristic geophysical signatures and structural
trends, and are ranked from 1 to 11, as identified from this
study.
Figure 6 includes target areas 1 and 3 (Figure 5). The
Erdenet NW and satellite deposits coincide with a series
of sub-circular to ovoid (~1 x 2 km diameter)
geophysical anomalies with low magnetic response and
flat character. One possible interpretation of this
magnetic signature is that the reverse-magnetised
porphyry intrusion overlapped with hydrothermal
alteration. The Erdenet porphyries also align along a
Extended Abstracts
Target generation, porphyry Cu–Mo systems in the Erdenet area, Mongolia
NNW- to NW-trending structure. The new targets in
this area consist of three distinctive (~1.5 x 1.5 km
diameter) geophysical anomalies that are also closely
associated with N-, NNW- to NW-trending structures.
Figure 6. Total magnetic intensity, reduced to pole image
with a NW sun-illumination. Note the similarity of the low
magnetic response associated with the Erdenet deposits
and the new target areas.
Ground verification, IP surveys and drilling of targets
generated from this study have provided evidence of
extensive hydrothermal alteration. Several of these
targets are also being considered for further work.
CONCLUSIONS
The airborne geophysics, in conjunction with
complementary geological data, enable identification of
geophysical signatures for known areas of
mineralisation and has assisted generation of new
targets for mineral exploration (Figure 5). The
structural framework derived from integration of
regional-, district- and prospect-scale interpretations
indicate a NE-SW trending, transpressional regime that
controls at least the latest deformational events
(Figure 4).
It is possible to divide the district-scale area into five
domains. The most prospective domains (2A and 3A,
ASEG 17th Geophysical Conference and Exhibition, Sydney 2004.
Batty, Hishida, Kai and Bold
Figure 3) consist of zoned igneous units bounded by
major NW-trending structures and subdivided by
WNW-trending shears. Domains 2B and 3B contain
possible prospective units at depth, buried by Triassic–
Jurassic volcanic and sedimentary units.
The predominantly W-trending domain 2A indicates
that thrusts could be present in the region, possibly
assisting the development and preservation of large
porphyry deposits. Although W-trending structures
dominate the region it appears to be the NW-trending
structures that focus the distribution of large ‘late’
porphyries of the Erdenet Complex.
Recognition of multiple phases and zoning of igneous
related magnetic units assists in the identification of
different porphyry bodies. From the magnetic signature
of porphyry bodies, it is difficult to say definitively
whether areas of either relative magnetically low or high
response are the most prospective, as magnetic
signatures can vary depending on the depth of
weathering across porphyries.
A detailed litho-magnetic study could resolve some of
the apparent complexity within the igneous units and
help to constrain some of the minor local structural
complexity. This may ultimately assist in more
accurately inferring targets for mineral potential within
this area. As there is an apparent NW-SE trend
associated with porphyry Cu–Mo mineralisation to the
South (Dejidmaa and Naito, 1998), determining the
timing and significance of this trend may be significant
in determining more regional target areas.
REFERENCES
Badarch, G., Cunningham, W.D., and Windley, B.F., 2002, A
new terrane subdivision for Mongolia: implications for the
Phanerozoic crustal growth of Central Asia: Journal of Asian
Earth Sciences, 21, 87-110.
Dejidmaa, G., and Naito, K., 1998, Previous studies on the
Erdenetiin Ovoo porphyry copper-molybdenum deposit,
Mongolia: Bulletin of the Geological Survey of Japan, 49,
299-308.
Japan International Cooperation Agency and Metal Mining
Agency Japan, 2001 (eds), Report on geological survey in the
Central North area Mongolia: Final Report, Internal MMAJ
document, 526 pp.
Jargalsaihan, D., Kázmér, M., Baras, Z., and Sanjaadorj, D.,
1996 (eds), Guide to the geology and mineral resources of
Mongolia: Geological Exploration Consulting and Services
(GCS) Co. Ltd., 329pp.
Extended Abstracts