Slashdot Mirror


Researchers Find Game-Changing Helium Reserve In Tanzania (cnn.com)

An anonymous reader writes from a report via CNN: Helium is an incredibly important element that is used in everything from party balloons to MRI machines -- it's even used for nuclear power. For many years, there have been global shortages of the element. For example, Tokyo Disneyland once had to suspend sales of its helium balloons due to the shortages. The shortages are expected to come to an end now that researchers from Oxford and Durham universities have discovered a "world-class" helium gas field in Tanzania's East African Rift Valley. They estimate that just one part of the reserve in Tanzania could be as large as 54 billion cubic feet (BCf), which is enough to fill more than 1.2 million medical MRI scanners. "To put this discovery into perspective, global consumption of helium is about 8 billion cubic feet (BCf) per year and the United States Federal Helium Reserve, which is the world's largest supplier, has a current reserve of just 24.2 BCf," said University of Oxford's Chris Ballentine, a professor with the Department of Earth Sciences. "Total known reserves in the USA are around 153 BCf. This is a game-changer for the future security of society's helium needs and similar finds in the future may not be far away," Ballentine added.

190 comments

  1. Just two words by MountainLogic · · Score: 3, Funny
    1. Re:Just two words by PmanAce · · Score: 1

      Mincraft shaft?

      --
      Tired of my customary (Score:1)
    2. Re: Just two words by ThePhish · · Score: 1

      General Turgidson!

    3. Re:Just two words by Joce640k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How is an extra 7 years supply a 'game changer'?

      To me a 'game changer' would mean we can stop worrying about helium supply, not "it'll still run out in my lifetime".

      --
      No sig today...
    4. Re:Just two words by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      I figured it out: It's game-changing in the sense that people won't have to go to the USA with cap in hand to beg them for some Helium.

      --
      No sig today...
    5. Re:Just two words by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      In a single deposit, that's pretty huge.

      Regardless, the "running out of helium" thing is a bit of hyperbole. For one, right now we waste most of our helium (in industry, not balloons - balloons and aircraft are only a tiny fraction of the total). We could reduce consumption by an order of magnitude by better recycling. Even concerning aircraft, new fabrics like vectran are significantly less permeable than old ones, and new techniques (hybrid airships, phase-change ballast, etc) help avoid the need for venting.

      Helium can't "run out" on Earth because it's part of our atmosphere. Now, chilling it out of the air would be significantly more expensive than recovering from ground reserves - no question there. But from a concentration perspective, neon is about 3,6 times as common as helium, which is in turn about 57 times as common as xenon (by volume). Neon is about $70/kg, xenon about $3500. So it's not linear, but helium would probably slot in at around $150, about an order of magnitude more expensive than it is today. Some back of an envelope calculations show that a party balloon contains around 2 grams of helium, meaning that the helium would cost about $0,30. Hardly world changing, from that perspective at least.

      Furthermore, we're not going to be switching to recovering from the atmosphere simply because there will always be more in the ground. We'll move from one deposit to the next, richest to next richest (a downward trend, offset by the upward trend of new finds and the advancement of new technology driving down recovery costs). So long as there's gases in the Earth of any kind, they're going to be more helium-rich than the air. They're also going to be easier to extract the helium from - dilutant gases like CO2, for example, are much easier to freeze out than O2/N2/Ar.

      Lastly, the costs of cryogenic refrigeration are only set to go down. Right now, low temperature refrigeration not only has low thermal efficiency, it also has low carnot efficiency. That is, to say, physics says we can be far more efficient than we actually are. But new refrigeration systems, like AMR (magnetic), allow for much higher efficiencies at cryogenic temperatures.

      --
      Did he just go crazy and fall asleep?
    6. Re:Just two words by Rei · · Score: 2

      It should also be added that we're far from knowing where all of the good helium reserves are - actually it's not gotten nearly as much attention as oil and natural gas, and we're still finding giant deposits of them. We're only just beginning to understand how helium concentrates in certain reserves and not others - a key aspect to locating future deposits.

      --
      Did he just go crazy and fall asleep?
    7. Re:Just two words by Rei · · Score: 1

      Whoops, correction: those prices were per cubic meter, not per kg. And per-volume is a better measure for party balloons anyway. So a party balloon full of neon would be about $1 and one full of xenon about $50. So helium would slot in closer to xenon, perhaps around $3-4.

      Now factor in the future potential of more efficient refrigeration of the atmosphere, the use of low-quality ground sources rather than atmospheric, etc.... even wasteful uses like party balloons are going nowhere, even if we find no more good reserves - when in reality we're likely to find many more as we get better at learning what sorts of conditions are likely to yield helium traps.

      --
      Did he just go crazy and fall asleep?
    8. Re:Just two words by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Helium can't "run out" on Earth because it's part of our atmosphere.

      Except that it's the lightest component of our atmosphere, so it naturally diffuses upwards and eventually heads off into space (I can't remember whether that's escape or being stripped off by the solar wind, but it certainly does go). The helium in ground level atmosphere is a balance of atmospheric helium loss against the seepage of helium deposits from rocks combined with new helium generated as a result of radioactive decay. Sequestration of atmospheric helium would shift the equilibrium point slightly.

      Personally, I'm all for banning helium balloons. Balloons of all kinds, in fact. They're one of the most wasteful products on the market.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    9. Re:Just two words by Rei · · Score: 2

      Except that it's the lightest component of our atmosphere, so it naturally diffuses upwards and eventually heads off into space

      And it's also part of the uranium and thorium decay series, so it's constantly produced.

      Sequestration of atmospheric helium would shift the equilibrium point slightly.

      Insignificantly. The atmosphere loses 50 grams of helium per second and gains 50 from the ground (1.6MT/year). The mass of Earth's atmosphere is 5e15 tonnes. Helium is 5ppmv. You don't have to take the time to run the numbers to know that the mass of helium in the atmosphere is tremendous and only slowly cycled through over the course of a few million years. Not to mention that taking it out of the atmosphere, using it for a while, then having it escape back into the atmosphere is a closed loop.

      Personally, I'm all for banning helium balloons.

      That's akin to banning baking soda volcanoes to cut down on the global consumption of baking soda. You're not addressing the real issue, only a side show. All lifting purposes combined - balloons, airships, aerostats, etc - make up just a fraction of the smallest usage category (other = 13%), which also includes a wide variety of other non-industrial helium uses. Cryogenics is the biggest user (1/3rd of all helium production), followed by purging and controlled atmospheres. Even welding is a bigger user than lifting purposes.

      They're one of the most wasteful products on the market.

      Helium balloons are a kids toy. Virtually all kids toys are "wasteful products". Why not just ban children?

      --
      Did he just go crazy and fall asleep?
    10. Re:Just two words by Rei · · Score: 1

      Ugh, can't write straight today. Helium would slot in closer to *neon*, perhaps around $3-4.

      --
      Did he just go crazy and fall asleep?
    11. Re: Just two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why not just ban children?"
      I think you are on to something here. Why is this a problem? Too many people, to few resources. An all out ban of children would save the planet for sure.
      But maybe we should just begin with banning clearly wasteful behavior, or at least, value helium as if we are almost out, and helium filled party bloons will be a thing of the past.

    12. Re:Just two words by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Lets ban Helium in party balloons and use Hydrogen instead, it would be far more fun that way, at least for the pyro kids.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    13. Re:Just two words by nmr_andrew · · Score: 1

      This is a relatively huge deposit, agreed. We do waste a whole lot of helium. In fact, it may be that most of what's wasted is actually from natural gas fields not capturing the helium "byproduct".

      I think you grossly understate that chilling it out of the air would be "signficantly" more expensive than recovering from ground reserves, it's far more expensive than that. A small helium recovery system for NMR/MRI instruments costs on the order of $200k installed, ignoring ongoing maintenance. We looked into one a few years back as helium prices rose - I manage 3 NMR instruments and we use ~60L/week of liquid helium keeping the cold - and the payback period for a recovery system at then current prices was on the order of 15 years again ignoring maintenance. That may be more like 12 years now. And that's for separating and reliquefying helium that's a very significant portion of the captured gas, not something that a small fraction of 1%. Economics get better as you use and recover more. I will say though that the newest large magnets come with built in reliquefaction systems - they still take several to many thousands of liters of liquid helium to cool and energize, but only require a small periodic topping up.

      Pricing can be a bit tricky, but we pay ~$12/liter for liquid helium which is on the lower end of retail. One liter of liquid becomes something like 720 liters as a gas, so your per cubic meter price a couple of posts down is a bit low, it should be $15-20. A full party balloon has a negligible amount, though, if you figure 1/2 liter/balloon my one liter of liquid would fill almost 1500 of them, or about $0.01 each. I've filled a couple of dozen from one of our gas cylinders and the amount used didn't even register on the regulator.

    14. Re:Just two words by Rei · · Score: 1

      IMHO, it would be interesting if one could use the magnets from the MRI hardware itself for AMR cooling. The magnet is the lion's share of the cost of an AMR system. And AMR is much more efficient at cryogenic temperatures than compression/expansion cycles.

      You know, it's funny, I've read a lot of papers on AMR, including cost analysis studies, and I've never come across anyone considering that possibility yet.

      --
      Did he just go crazy and fall asleep?
    15. Re:Just two words by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Virtually all kids toys are "wasteful products". Why not just ban children?

      Well, in the long term, that would solve all problems with over-consumption of resources.

    16. Re:Just two words by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Helium balloons are a kids toy. Virtually all kids toys are "wasteful products".

      Most kids' toys last longer than a day or two; you can't pass the balloon you had in your childhood down to your children in the same way you can pass on teddy bears and action figures. We do buy too many toys, and we do treat too many toys as disposable, but having genuinely disposable toys encourages wasteful attitudes early on.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
  2. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about the huge reserves in Washington DC?

    1. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's hot air. I can see how you could be confused, though, as they both make balloons fly.

    2. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Herp Derp hot air DC Herp Derp Derp Derp Derp.

      It's the stupid fucking hicks in this country that we need to worry about, they're going to elect the second coming of Francisco Franco.

    3. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why would the hicks vote for Hillary?

    4. Re:What? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure Hope Hicks is voting for Trump. She'll probably talk her whole family into doing so as well!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    5. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either one of the asshats, Clinton or Trump, we get a fascist either way.

      You stupid fucking hicks are too dense to get it.

    6. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Herp Derp hot air DC Herp Derp Derp Derp Derp.

      It's the stupid fucking hicks in this country that we need to worry about, they're going to elect the second coming of Francisco Franco.

      It's clear racism and bigotry flourish under Progressive Liberals. The evidence is above. You are even proud of being a racist and a bigot.

      Yeah... Killary is such the perfect example. So follow her advice. Delete your Account; because you are a racist and a bigot.

    7. Re:What? by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      It's actually not hard to get helium in any case, just take some radioactive ore and wait awhile. I've got a nice batch of 4-H brewing up from a chunk of uraninite right now. My five-legged cat is keeping three eyes on it right now.

    8. Re: What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ar least clinton isnt openly corporate facist in he international dealings.

      however... because trump is such an asshat he would probably be less effective in enacting ttip, because other countries would tell him to fuck off.

      also maybe brexit breaks ttip anyways.(cant give britain free market access for free)

  3. Oh the horror for mouse land. by I4ko · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why the f*ck are we still wasting this gas on such stupid things as party balloons. Why wasn't this completely verboten years ago.

    1. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Why the f*ck are we still wasting this gas on such stupid things as party balloons. Why wasn't this completely verboten years ago.

      Much of the helium used for balloons is recycled (captured from devices using liquid helium) and the gas in party balloons is actually a very small sector of the helium market. What I don't understand is why the United States is dumping helium from its reserve. This is causing prices to be unnaturally low and there is going to be a massive price shock when the reserve is finally empty. What motivation is there for that?

    2. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Why are we using it on:

      Cryogenics (32%)

          Pressurizing and purging (18%)

          Welding (13%)

          Controlled atmospheres (18%)

          Leak detection (4%)

          Breathing mixtures (2%)

    3. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by spire3661 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Contrary to popular belief, the government doesnt get to control every fucking thing.

      --
      Good-bye
    4. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by bobbied · · Score: 0

      Contrary to popular belief, the government doesnt get to control every f----g thing.

      No, but that doesn't mean it won't try too..

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    5. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The problem here is that the government *is* controlling this, requiring the sale of helium at below-market prices and forbidding new production even as reserves fall and usage increases for the sake of "privatization".

      But hey, I'm sure if we just privatized a little harder it would work out, right?

    6. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      Why the f*ck are we still wasting this gas on such stupid things as party balloons. Why wasn't this completely verboten years ago.

      Verboten by whom? There is no worldwide helium police force.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    7. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They could put a reasonable tax on using helium merely for entertainment to reserve more of it for the medical and scientific uses.

      They could also do more to protect our helium reserves or reserve them for science, rather than dumping it on the market wholesale.

    8. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by tlhIngan · · Score: 5, Informative

      Why the f*ck are we still wasting this gas on such stupid things as party balloons. Why wasn't this completely verboten years ago.

      Well, technically, the party balloon helium is quite impure, and it often is economically unviable to refine it for scientific usage.

      That's the only reason why it's still around - it costs more to make it useful than to use what we have in the reserves that are usable.

      Contrary to popular belief, the party balloon folks are just as price sensitive, and a bottle of the good He is much too expensive, so they buy the crappy impure He.

      Once supplies dwindle to the point refining party balloon He to lab grade is economically viable, then we won't have He balloons anymore.

    9. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same reason you are allowed to keep wasting oxygen I suppose...

    10. Re: Oh the horror for mouse land. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nein. Rauchen Verboten (no smoking) and Parken Verboten (no parking) are common signs in modern Germany.

    11. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Nobody ever said Government was smart and foreword thinking about what it does. In fact, most thinking people understand that it's quite the opposite, government is usually stupid, slow, costly and inefficient, a set of traist that gets worse as government gets bigger.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    12. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Why the f*ck are we still wasting this gas on such stupid things as party balloons. Why wasn't this completely verboten years ago.

      It's a proven fact that fully 1/3 of all helium production in the world each year goes to making people talk like chipmunks.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    13. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Contrary to popular belief, the government doesnt get to control every f----g thing.

      No, but that doesn't mean it won't try too..

      So who else is trying?

    14. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by LunaticTippy · · Score: 2

      I hate to be the one to break this to you, but pretty much everything humans do is a total waste. Why are balloons stupider than driving around for no reason, heating/cooling circus size houses, spectator sports, reality TV, political ads, most MRIs, etc. ad nauseum?

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    15. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by wbr1 · · Score: 1

      Can't control your grammar.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    16. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they shouldn't...but you know, for important non-renewable resources, maybe we as a society shouldn't be squandering them on frivolous things just because they are at the present time plentiful, and if society doesn't have that foresight, government should.

    17. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I think you answered your own question.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    18. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it involves interstate commerce they do. Bitch about it all you want, but it's right there in the constitution, so...

    19. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Can't control your grammar.

      Apparently your grammar is in need of control as well...LOL..

      Please excuse my improper use of "too" where "to" was supposed to be. Now to be moving on to more important things... Where is my fingernail clipper?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    20. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What motivation is there for that?

      Lobbyists for medical equipment manufacturers would be my first guess, and my second.

    21. Re: Oh the horror for mouse land. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Verboten is defined in Meriam-Websters

    22. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This is exactly the kind of thing that the government should control. We're talking about an element that is consumed at a rate much faster than it is produced naturally, and which escapes the atmosphere if released. Wasting it on silly things today means that important things that actually need it are going to be more expensive tomorrow.

    23. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Sure, but by that time all that impure helium that is being spent today is already gone and cannot be recovered. So once we get to the point where impure helium becomes valuable, we'll have a smaller reserve of it than we would have otherwise had.

    24. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Because it uses up a limited non-renewable resource that doesn't have a good replacement for many important applications.

      Driving around for no reason is kinda sorta comparable in that it uses up oil, but it can be replaced with something else in most applications.

    25. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      Horsefeathers. You can get as much He as you want from gas well waste, rocks or Jupiter, it just costs energy. Energy that humanity wastes on whatever baloney seems important. You can rest assured that a hundred years from now there will be plenty of He around at a price. Probably enough low purity stuff for balloons at a price.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    26. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      And if there isn't, and we can't, say, make new MRI machines, then what? Do we at least get to dig out your corpse and hang it as a warning to future generations?

      Sorry, but I'm not going to trust the nebulous predictions of "we're just going to science and engineer shit out of it eventually". Not unless you have very specific figures to back up those assertions, and reasonably conclude that, yes, by the time helium shortage will impact critical applications, we will definitely have other cheap sources of it.

    27. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can extend this argument to any commodity.

    28. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It baffles me why we don't use hydrogen for balloons. It's vastly cheaper, lighter, and leaks more slowly.

      The only downside is the danger of storing it in big tanks to fill the things. But surely we've reached the stage now where suitably accredited businesses are allowed to keep potentially hazardous materials on site? It happens in lots of other industries.

    29. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      No; only to the one that is not renewable and doesn't have alternatives.

    30. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by dbIII · · Score: 0

      It's perfectly accurate for "conservative" governments. They want lots of control in the bedroom and of peoples sex lives in general but want business, white collar crime etc left alone. They want to control every fucking thing but scream about freedom over controls on property, commerce etc.

    31. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It's not that easy. There is not a lot being produced on earth by natural means and the artificial means require a lot of work to build stuff before energy is applied.

    32. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but the point is that *at the present time*, it is not economically viable to store that impure helium for the future to refine it.

      Ultimately it might be better for the human race as a whole to conserve as much helium as possible for future generations. But you can say the same thing about oil, and natural gas, and uranium, rare earths, and any other precious commodity.

      Oh, and the environment.

      As we can see, the market forces of the present day dictate today's actions, and today it is not economically viable to save helium for the future. Or the environment.

    33. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      This just goes to show (along with numerous other examples) that the market forces are notoriously limited in their perspective, and we should not rely on them for long-term planning.

    34. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by adolf · · Score: 1

      If it can be recycled and sold for party balloons, it can also be recycled and used for another medical device/other important thing

      Unless you want to tell how it is that "virgin" helium is somehow superior to "recycled" helium, despite both of them being noble gases no matter how many times you use them -- especially when we're running out of the former, and keep letting Little Johnny make chipmonk noises with the latter before releasing it into the atmosphere (or beyond?).

    35. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's about the purity level.

    36. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by adolf · · Score: 1

      It baffles me why we don't use hydrogen for balloons. It's vastly cheaper, lighter, and leaks more slowly.

      The only downside is the danger of storing it in big tanks to fill the things. But surely we've reached the stage now where suitably accredited businesses are allowed to keep potentially hazardous materials on site? It happens in lots of other industries.

      The reaction is short-lived, but I don't want to see Little Johnny's pants on fire because of it.

      Otherwise, having the a vent above the filling station that goes outside should alleviate most any commercialized OMFG HYDROGEN BUILDUP NEXT TO THAT ARCING FLUORESCENT LAMP HRP DERP DERP worries -- as long as only people who deal with explosive gases for a living transport the bottles, even within the store itself.

    37. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the process of liquefying gas for cryogenics, the dominant use of helium, does a great job of purifying helium.

    38. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Helium_Reserve

      By 1995, a billion cubic metres of the gas had been collected, and the reserve was US$1.4 billion in debt, prompting the Congress of the United States in 1996 to phase out the reserve.[4][5] The resulting "Helium Privatization Act of 1996" (Public Law 104–273) directed the United States Department of the Interior to start selling off the reserve by 2005.[6]

      Captcha: disposal

    39. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This doesn't make too much sense. The helium in the US national reserve is not pure, but a mixture of nitrogen and helium that has to be purified. The balloon market is small and the price of helium for it is quite low, so that makes it pointless to capture and recycle helium from small operations just to be used in balloons. Larger operations would be more interested in recycling helium for its own use. I've worked with lab equipment before that would recycle helium from a system, and remove impurities in the process of re-liquifying the helium. Any other setup that needs liquid helium is going to be paying for the energy cost of liquifying the helium, and purification of the helium is a byproduct of that process. The part that is often not economical is recapturing enough helium to make it worth recapturing, and having a high enough demand to pay the fixed cost of the equipment up front.

    40. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by fnj · · Score: 1

      Your list isn't very good, as it doesn't break out use as a lifting gas, and it's not at all clear where that is buried in those categories. I have seen the claim that a total of 7% is used in party balloons, weather balloons, scientific balloons, and a very few airships.

      The USGS statistics are the very definition of insanity. In 2015 the US produced from natural gas 76 million m^3, withdrew from storage 24 million m^3, imported for consumption 10 million m^3, and AT THE SAME TIME EXPORTED 67 million m^3. Prior to 2013, the US never imported any helium.

      Domestic consumption totaled 43 million m^3 - much less than the amount produced domestically without any withdrawals from storage. We export much more than we use.

    41. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by fnj · · Score: 1

      Well, technically, the party balloon helium is quite impure, and it often is economically unviable to refine it for scientific usage.

      The second part, after the "and", is complete and utter nonsense. All currently economically viable helium starts out at about 1-7% purity in the selected natural gas fields. It is refined from there to Grade A (99.995% purity). Actually that has been superseded, and nowadays you can obtain helium refined to anywhere from balloon grade, which is anything from 80-99.98%, through Grade 4, which is 99.99%, all the way to Grade 7 99.99999%. All it takes is progressive refinement. It is perfectly obvious that it is way easier and cheaper to raise 80% to 99.99+%, than it is 1-7% to 99.99+%.

    42. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by fnj · · Score: 1

      We're talking about an element that is consumed at a rate much faster than it is produced naturally

      Likely so, but I don't think anyone knows what is the rate of natural helium generation in the earth by nuclear decay.

      and which escapes the atmosphere if released.

      That's not a meaningful concept. Helium is constantly being released by the earth into the atmosphere, and constantly escapes the atmosphere, but the concentration in the atmosphere is quite constant, any amount released by humans is a fart in the wind, and it does not all "rise to the top". That's not how gaseous diffusion works. 0.0005% by volume, or 0.00007% by mass, of the earth's atmosphere is helium, and will remain so (in terms of individual human or even societal existence), essentially forever. All the helium you could ever possibly want is right there in the atmosphere - 20 TRILLION cubic meters - 100 MILLION Hindenburgs worth. And it would take a mind-boggling infrastructure and energy input (i.e., $) to extract it.

      But extraction quite possible. The concentration of neon in the atmosphere is only four times that of helium, and ALL the neon used is extracted from the atmosphere. It is "merely" very expensive compared to the present-day price of helium as skimmed out of natural gas.

      This has all been worked out already.

    43. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1
      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    44. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

      I agree. Hydrogen party balloons are much more fun.

    45. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Likely so, but I don't think anyone knows what is the rate of natural helium generation in the earth by nuclear decay.

      We have really good estimates of the heat output of the Earth. Even if the exact proportions of that come from which decay processes is still being worked on, you can easily run the numbers and get an upper bound on helium from radioactive decay is about 10 million kg / year. More careful estimates using actual breakdown different decay rates within the earth give an estimate of 3 million kg / year. This is less than the amount extracted from the ground every year. But as you've pointed out, there is a lot more in the atmosphere, which shows the escape process isn't particularly fast and most of what we waste just ends up in the lower atmosphere.

      It is "merely" very expensive compared to the present-day price of helium as skimmed out of natural gas.

      It is four-five orders of magnitude more expensive. If the price of copper or aluminum jumped to the price of gold, those metals would be effectively gone for all but the highest priority use, and the distinction about it being completely gone vs. massively more expensive won't matter for most usages. Considering there is already calls of crisis because the price of neon has jumped by a factor 10 in the last couple years due to changes in demand and infrastructure issues...

    46. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You've never seen how many resources are both imported and exported at the same time? It has nothing to do with insanity.

    47. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Can't weather/scientific balloons use hydrogen?

      They only go up once and burst. Why do you need Helium for that?

      --
      No sig today...
    48. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      They could also do more to protect our helium reserves or reserve them for science, rather than dumping it on the market wholesale.

      Why would I want the next generation to have anything nice? I can be rich today!

      --
      No sig today...
    49. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      there is going to be a massive price shock when the reserve is finally empty.

      Then why don't you buy up the helium now, while it is cheap, and then get rich when the price skyrockets?

    50. Re: Oh the horror for mouse land. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Germany is Deutsche Nazi Scheisse land. Does not surprise me.

    51. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lightning strikes? Transportation of volatile gases?

    52. Re: Oh the horror for mouse land. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah...Republicans in Congress enriching corporations at the expense of all of us with 'privitization' initiatives. Or as it is really: 'giving the private sector an asset the public owns because capitalism'.

    53. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      there is going to be a massive price shock when the reserve is finally empty.

      Then why don't you buy up the helium now, while it is cheap, and then get rich when the price skyrockets?

      Because very few people have vast caverns at their disposal in which to store sequestered gas.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    54. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 2

      The problem here is that the government *is* controlling this, requiring the sale of helium at below-market prices and forbidding new production even as reserves fall and usage increases for the sake of "privatization".

      But hey, I'm sure if we just privatized a little harder it would work out, right?

      It's a ridiculous state of affairs. Let's assume that they are correct, and that the state-owned helium reserve does indeed hamper the development of private helium sequestration and storage industry. OK. How are we going to encourage the private helium industry to increase their capacity? I would say that dumping large volumes on gas on the market and undercutting all their commercial competitors is highly unlikely to encourage competition. If they really want to achieve their stated goal, they should increase their price steadily, encouraging other players to ramp up their capacity as customers try to reduce their reliance on the US reserve....

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    55. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      You can extend this argument to any commodity.

      No you can't. The GP poster was talking about something that escapes the atmosphere if released. Gold does not diffuse through the atmosphere and drift off through space. Parts of crude may volatilise and drift through the atmosphere, but none of them will ever reach a high enough altitude to escape Earth's gravity. I don't know if even methane is light enough to escape the Earth. Helium is very much a special case.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    56. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      Though the shitty Skype audio algorithms might start making inroads into that market. I know I sound like a chipmunk more often on Skype than I do huffing balloons nowadays.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    57. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by wulfhere · · Score: 1

      Wish I had mod points...

      --
      -- Sent from a computer.
    58. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Because very few people have vast caverns at their disposal in which to store sequestered gas.

      Isn't that what futures are for? To allow you to speculate to your heart's content without ever providing any kind of benefit to society, just price fluctuations which hinder the real economy.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    59. Re: Oh the horror for mouse land. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      You are part of the problem with your blind hatred of Republicans, you have failed to notice that the Democrats are no better.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    60. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Where is my fingernail clipper?

      Sorry, I borrowed it, do you want it back?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    61. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      They want lots of control in the bedroom and of peoples sex lives in general

      Being against opening up "Marriage" to homosexual couples is nothing like trying to control what you do in your bedroom. Please, I would love for you to point to anyone trying to pass modern anti sodomy laws.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    62. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by slipped_bit · · Score: 1

      Weather balloon do use hydrogen. Even many (most, now) of the hobby balloon people who send cameras, ham radio things, another other experiments up on weather balloons use hydrogen due to the cost being much lower than that of helium.

    63. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      What a strange thing to say. All the MRIs I've seen done were done for one reason - to move money from one place to another place. Sure, there is some vague unproven claim of medical necessity. If your precious Helium is not around at any price (impossible!) I've got great faith in the ability of humans to find some other excuse to move money from one place to another.

      It is so funny how people get worked up about one element and ignore the giant oceans of waste flowing by constantly. No biggie though, at least it isn't Helium!

      Tell you what. If Helium ever becomes scarce how about we stop buying say Candy and plow those hundreds of billions of dollars into recovering Helium from gas wells, welding, and we can make Helium so cheap we can fill our tires with it just to piss you off.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    64. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Otherwise, having the a vent above the filling station that goes outside should alleviate most any commercialized OMFG HYDROGEN BUILDUP NEXT TO THAT ARCING FLUORESCENT LAMP HRP DERP DERP worries

      I remember watching one of the late Shuttle launches - between getting broadband in about 2005, and whenever the last Shuttle flight was. They did an extended hold at the built-in T-9 minutes (IIRC) hold point because of the detection of excessive hydrogen in one of the engine bays, suggestive of a leak.

      Hydrogen is an easier gas to seal than helium. But it's still a bitch to seal.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    65. Re:Oh the horror for mouse land. by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      If lightning penetrates the skin of your weather balloon, then ... does it matter if there's flames or not?

      --
      No sig today...
  4. Waste not want not by Jamlad · · Score: 1

    Then stop pissing it away by undercharging and wasting it on frivolous shit like balloons!

  5. The race to loot Africa is on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who's ready for another round of the Great Game? All the major players are there. Place your bets!

    1. Re:The race to loot Africa is on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a very limited view of history you must have.

    2. Re:The race to loot Africa is on by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      At $1/cu foot, this could turn Tanzania into a developed country.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    3. Re:The race to loot Africa is on by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      At $1/cu foot, this could turn Tanzania into a developed country.

      BUT - I'm sure that the press conference was hilarious.

    4. Re:The race to loot Africa is on by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      At $1/cu foot, this could turn Tanzania into a developed country.

      Ah, don't be silly. It's better for the country if the money goes to private enterprise. The government will benefit much more if the gas is extracted and sold by a company that pays practically zero tax than if it was owned and sold by the people of the country. If Shell get to extract it for a pittance, they'll be far better off than a "developed country", they'll be a developing country. See the difference?

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    5. Re:The race to loot Africa is on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Highly unlikely, given how often gas/oil/gold deposits have actually benefited the people who live in that country. It will likely be stolen by the leaders/politicians of the country in the form of bribes, kickbacks, and other shady deals.

    6. Re:The race to loot Africa is on by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Ummm, the Great Game was between Britain and Russia for Central Asia. Britain lost.

      Britain took Tanzania from the Germans in world war 1. Carrying a gunboat across about 600 miles of land to sail on Lake Tanganyka was one of the more insane aspects of that war.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  6. 153 to 207? "Game changer"!?!?! Exaggerate much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK, it's a significant find, but "game changer"?

    At the usage rate quoted, that means we run out in 25 years instead of 19.

    Tell a patient with a terminal illness and 6 months to live that you found a "game changer". Then tell him, "Yep, you're going to live 6 1/2 months!"

    I doubt the patient would agree with your "game changer" assessment.

  7. 54/8 = +7 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Who does the math on these? How can adding less than 10 years to the global supply be a massive global game changer?

    We are eating through this precious non-renewable resources at a crazy rate. And doing silly stuff with it like "Happy Birthday" balloons.

    okay the 54Bcf was in "part of the reserve. Still it is a non-renewable resource that we should treat preciously and not capriciously.

  8. "Researchers from Oxford and Durham" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does that mean Britain, America, and their corporate friends are going to enslave Tanzania and exploit that nation's resources to it's absolutely fullest, leaving the local population far poorer and devastated before they arrived?

    Or is Tanzania going to be the new center for helium, and all of Tanzania's resources go to enriching the local population who have a birthright to these resources, pulling Tanzania out of poverty?

    I'm guessing big business, banks, and military is going to rape the shit out of Tanzania's resources and leave nothing for the people, business as usual.

    1. Re:"Researchers from Oxford and Durham" by magarity · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nice rant about the US and UK pillaging the innocent locals. You seem to have missed the most obvious choice: Local Tanzanian officials will vastly enrich themselves and send their families to the US and UK while leaving nothing for the people.

    2. Re:"Researchers from Oxford and Durham" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True dat...

    3. Re:"Researchers from Oxford and Durham" by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Local Tanzanian officials will vastly enrich themselves and send their families to the US and UK while leaving nothing for the people.

      To be fair, they're only trying to be good capitalists.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:"Researchers from Oxford and Durham" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah right, because Local Tanzanian officials have the technological and hardware resources to tap into this new reserve? Some moron even modded you up for this line of thinking.

      Multinationals gut entire societies leaving a small slither of a fraction of the profits for "local officials". But what you don't understand, is that the Local Officials never had a choice to begin with. They were already slaves to their white masters who invaded their country, and would make it very hard for them to exist if Local officials go against the multinational's plan. Oh and if you haven't figure it out yet - Local officials are completely incapable of tapping into this resource. It takes the enslavement of multinational white corporations to get the helium out.

      The patterns of multinationals exploiting all of africa, leaving nothing for the people, and then retards like you falling for "the leaders are corrupt!" has been used hundreds of times to justify their unabated pilfering of an entire nation.

    5. Re:"Researchers from Oxford and Durham" by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

      You seem to think that exploitation by foreign corporations and corruption of local officials are mutually exclusive. What basis have you for this assumption?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    6. Re:"Researchers from Oxford and Durham" by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Nice rant about the US and UK pillaging the innocent locals. You seem to have missed the most obvious choice: Local Tanzanian officials will vastly enrich themselves and send their families to the US and UK while leaving nothing for the people.

      OK, so the fact that they get rich by collusion with white-country-based multinationals and the tacit approval of white-country governments is all incidental, and we can absolve the white money machine of all culpability? Do you really reckon it's OK to give bribes, and the only people in the wrong are those that accept them?

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    7. Re:"Researchers from Oxford and Durham" by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1

      Clearly you know fvckall about the real Africa.
      Bribes are the only way to get things done, it's part of their culture(s) and they see nothing wrong with it.
      Which is why they look so surprised when they get caught out, because as far as they are concerned it's business as usual, which it usually is.
      So a very select few get super filthy rich, while the rest continue living in abject poverty.
      Welcome to Africa!
      Although to be fair, it happens elsewhere as well, it's not just in Africa, Russia is apparently just as bad (but I wouldn't know personally).

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
    8. Re:"Researchers from Oxford and Durham" by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Bribes are the only way to get things done, it's part of their culture(s) and they see nothing wrong with it.

      The question is: was it a part of their culture before white Europeans first bribed them?

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    9. Re:"Researchers from Oxford and Durham" by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1

      Hmm, well there was "Lebola" which must be paid to the family of the bride, but they have that in a lot of other cultures as well (dowry etc).
      So I actually can't say if it existed before the white plague, I just know how it's done NOW.

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
  9. Thank god, we are saved, for 6 years by frnic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously, click bait much? Yes, it is a large find, but at 8 BCF/year it is about 6 or 7 years of supply, that is NOT a game changer for humanity, that is a game changer for the people that will make a fortune rationing it out until we run out of helium.

    1. Re:Thank god, we are saved, for 6 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's a ~30% increase in total reserves. That's pretty significant, regardless of our rate of use.

    2. Re:Thank god, we are saved, for 6 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does "just one part of the reserve could be as much as" mean?

    3. Re:Thank god, we are saved, for 6 years by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      It's a game-changer for Tanzania, though.

      Ot it could be, at least. A significant source of foreign investment capital, which can be (but probably won't be) used to help lift the country into the 21st century (or at least late 20th).

      Now, if they have enough sense to build some power plants, highways/railroads/factories with some of that income, they could be in good shape by and by

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    4. Re:Thank god, we are saved, for 6 years by Solandri · · Score: 1, Interesting

      We can't "run out" of helium. Anything which emits alpha particles creates helium. Alpha particles are just helium nuclei, and when they bump into other atoms and steal the electrons they become proper helium atoms. These reservoirs are just places were radioactive decay underground generated lots of helium, and the rate at which the rocks let helium pass through is slower than the rate at which new helium is being created.

      So unlike oil, this helium isn't just sitting there waiting to be tapped. It's slowly leaking out - it is one of if not the smallest molecule (smaller than H2) and can squeeze through just about anything. Even metal storage tanks will leak it. And once it reaches the air it's inevitably lost into space. The rate it's leaking out should be proportional to the amount of helium, so the most efficient use would actually be to deplete any known reservoirs, then scale back your use to match the rate at which the reservoir is being replenished. Think of the problem as how to maximize the amount of water you can put to use when your only storage tank has an unfixable leak at the bottom. The more water you try to store in the tank, the faster it leaks, and so the percentage of water you can actually use decreases.

    5. Re:Thank god, we are saved, for 6 years by gweihir · · Score: 1

      It is just stupid journalism: "game-changer" "breakthrough" "revolutionary" "unheard of" bullshit. Apparently, the masses like it that way.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    6. Re:Thank god, we are saved, for 6 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We can't "run out" of helium. Anything which emits alpha particles creates helium....

      And the amount of alpha sources we have access to is far, far smaller than the demand for helium. Yes, technically we can't completely run out of it because there will always be some amount around. But that is orders of magnitude smaller than high priority demand. If you can't fulfill such demand, that is effectively running out.

      So unlike oil, this helium isn't just sitting there waiting to be tapped. It's slowly leaking out - it is one of if not the smallest molecule (smaller than H2) and can squeeze through just about anything. Even metal storage tanks will leak it.

      It is more permeable than other gases, but not infinitely so. The very reserve found in the article discussed above is exactly a case of what you say doesn't exist: a reserve that as accumulated over time as the leakage was much slower than production. This is also true of the helium removed from natural gas wells. When those wells run dry, they don't keep producing helium at the same rate still, they will be essentially empty with an infinitesimal production rate compared to how fast we pump the helium out. Helium trapped in rocks is even used as a dating and analysis method in geology, not so much because of the timescale of helium leaking out, but because it stays there for many millions of years in many cases.

    7. Re:Thank god, we are saved, for 6 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sorry, but you're way off, and the people who you modded up just don't know any better or also have no idea how far off this is.

      Let's run some numbers. The power output of the surface of the Earth is about 40 TW, which is a good proxy overestimating how much radioactive decay into helium there is in the whole Earth (some small amount of that power is primordial heat, a pretty significant amount of it is potassium decay and other beta sources, but we're going to be conservative). At roughly 5 MeV per alpha for decay of things like Thorium and Uranium, you can estimate that 40 TW of alpha decays would give ~5e25 alpha particles a second, i.e. ~300 g per second or 10 million kg per year. The world wide production of helium (not counting what is being dumped from the US reserve) is about 30 million kg a year.

      In other words, we're digging up helium three times faster from just near the surface as the an overestimate of the production of helium throughout the entire volume of the Earth, and we're using it up currently faster than that.

      So no, helium isn't produced anywhere near the rates we use it at currently, even when you include large parts of the Earth that are inaccessible to extraction. Helium production relies on trapped helium that has had millions of years to accumulate in concentrated pockets and hence it can run out enough to cause substantial changes to current use (which is dominated by industrial use, not "luxury" goods like balloons).

    8. Re:Thank god, we are saved, for 6 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's slowly leaking out - it is one of if not the smallest molecule (smaller than H2) and can squeeze through just about anything. Even metal storage tanks will leak it.

      Diffusion of small molecules and atoms through solids depends a lot more on the chemistry than the size of the molecule. Even if ignoring the chemistry, for a porous medium where the holes are larger than the molecule, a gas will diffuse inversely proportional to the viscosity, and helium has a higher viscosity than hydrogen. Also, the difference in size is not as big as you might think, especially since atomic radius is less relevant than the Van der Waals size that would be involved in the interaction with neighboring atoms, where helium and diatomic hydrogen are essentially the same size (depends slightly on situation).

      But any way, chemistry usually dominates. The result is that metals like steel have high permeability to hydrogen because it will bind to the metal and diffuse through the grain boundary structure. With an extreme ultrahigh vacuum system, you end up typically limited by the rate at which hydrogen and carbon monoxide (which is much bigger than hydrogen and helium) permeate through a stainless steel vacuum vessel. Chemical treatment of the stainless steel surface can help limit the hydrogen by forming a chromium oxide surface, but not really changing the porosity. Helium can diffuse through steel too, and there are materials where it will diffuse better because it isn't binding to the material, but other times that can relatively slow down the diffusion.

    9. Re:Thank god, we are saved, for 6 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corruption in Tanzania has its own Wikipedia entry. It will be a game-changer for someone, but not for the average Tanzanian.

    10. Re:Thank god, we are saved, for 6 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Africans do not build, you ought to know that.

  10. He-USD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, how do we convert this Helium into dollars in Americans' pockets? The important thing is that if any Tanzanian people get any money from this, it's only a few of them, or a tiny piece of the action (as mine employees).

    1. Re:He-USD by wile_e_wonka · · Score: 1

      Somebody marked this -1!? Mod parent up, please! Notate as "funny."

      Some people just don't understand completely appropriate humor. That said, the parent is wrong: there will not be even a few Tanzanians that make money from this. The management of the mining company will be American. The life-threatening labor will be performed by Tanzanians not in exchange for money, but in exchange for not being killed, and if they're lucky, for a portion of bread per day, of which the worker will eat a bite and send the rest to his wife and children if they aren't enslaved with him.

    2. Re:He-USD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your have just declared that all Tanzanians are ignorant savages incapable of managing their own natural resources and are beholden to whitey. Although in this case China already has quite a few ongoing enterprises in Africa so they will most likely be the one taking advantage of the poor savages. It is the leaders of these 3rd world pest holes who always take the money and stiff the citizens. You wouldn't be suggesting a regime change is in order so a better leader could be put in power who would make sure the citizens benefit from the situation? Maybe you think China, Russia, or the US should personally distribute the windfall to the citizens and bypass the rulers altogether? Of course this would mean a sizeable presence of troops to enforce the fare distribution of money to all. You sound like a stuck up progressive who loves to bash the world in general and the US in particular so how would you make sure the illiterate Tanzanian savages get their fare share?

    3. Re:He-USD by wile_e_wonka · · Score: 1

      Wow--a bit overly-serious much?

  11. A shortage of the second most common element... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems kind of dumb.

    1. Re:A shortage of the second most common element... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      I know. Why can't we just collect the exhaust fumes from the sun?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:A shortage of the second most common element... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Common in the universe perhaps.. But not so much on the surface where we generally work out our existence...

      No worries though.. There are generally other workable replacements to be had for most of He's uses. Just ask Zeppelin about that... Don't worry about that little mishap in Lakehurst...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:A shortage of the second most common element... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Funny

      There are generally other workable replacements to be had for most of He's uses. Just ask Zeppelin about that.

      We can't just replace He with Pb, idiot.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    4. Re:A shortage of the second most common element... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      There are generally other workable replacements to be had for most of He's uses. Just ask Zeppelin about that.

      We can't just replace He with Pb, idiot.

      Perhaps not, but it seems we can replace meaningful dialog with stuff that's not all day long on Shashdot. LOL...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    5. Re:A shortage of the second most common element... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Just ask Zeppelin about that

      OK, I asked Zeppelin about global supplies of Helium, and this was the response:

      https://youtu.be/DBzuYNK95sM

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:A shortage of the second most common element... by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      We just need to visit the sun AT NIGHT to collect the helium!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    7. Re:A shortage of the second most common element... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Seems kind of dumb.

      'In the universe' is not the same as 'on Earth'.

  12. Re:153 to 207? "Game changer"!?!?! Exaggerate much by bobbied · · Score: 1

    Comon man.. This is the media err.. Slashdot we are talking about... The headlines sell you know...

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  13. Technique to find it is the game changer by tomhath · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Up to now helium was found by chance when drilling for something else. This time they worked out a geological model of where to look, and sure enough they found a huge amount the first place they looked based on that model.

    That's the "game changer", knowing where to look for helium.

    1. Re:Technique to find it is the game changer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that part of the world has been known to produce natural nuclear reactors, it isn't in any way surprising that Helium would be found in high levels there.

  14. We're saved! by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    The shortages are expected to come to an end

    The inability of human beings to think in a term longer than a few months has always amazed me. This doesn't solve the problem, it merely postpones it. Helium escapes unless recaptured. If the rate of generation of helium from alpha decay is less than the rate of consumption, we will run out of helium one day - it's only a question of when.

    It's also amazing that we could have a shortage of a material when there are giant balls full of the stuff in the sky. But hey, that's how the cosmos works.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:We're saved! by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Guess what fusion reactors produce? Still think we will eventually run out?

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:We're saved! by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Learn 2 math? Your fusion reactors are off by several orders of magnitude compared to consumption. So to answer your question: Fusion reactors produce a tiny, tiny amount of helium - certainly not enough to even cover the cost of collecting it, let alone hoping to commercialize it. So yeah, we will eventually run out.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:We're saved! by slew · · Score: 1

      Learn 2 math? Your fusion reactors are off by several orders of magnitude compared to consumption. So to answer your question: Fusion reactors produce a tiny, tiny amount of helium - certainly not enough to even cover the cost of collecting it, let alone hoping to commercialize it. So yeah, we will eventually run out.

      Non sequitor. Sure, getting helium from fusion reactors is probably a futile exercise, but that doesn't mean we'll run out.

      Although there's some evidence that helium can come from alpha particle emitters (and we have a pretty much endless supply of radioactive rocks), apparently this research ignores the original source of the helium and simply postulates that volcanic activity can release helium stored in deep rocks where it can be dissolved in water and transported to the same types of formations that natural gas collects. So there may be much more of it available than we know about.

    4. Re:We're saved! by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      and we have a pretty much endless supply of radioactive rocks

      And it has taken those rocks billions of years to build up the current stockpiles of Helium, which we will deplete in 100 years or so. In fact, there were more of those rocks in the beginning. Now there's a lot of lead and iron and other products of decay. So the maximum rate of production of Helium is long over.

      Sure, Helium will be produced effectively forever. But again, it's a rate thing. While isotopes can be decaying all over the planet all the time that doesn't mean you'll be able to harvest it - it has taken a very large number of years for it to pool and accumulate into deposits that are large enough to be profitable.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    5. Re:We're saved! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although there's some evidence that helium can come from alpha particle emitters (and we have a pretty much endless supply of radioactive rocks), apparently this research ignores the original source of the helium...

      There isn't just some evidence, but that is the only source of "new" helium on Earth. But the amount of radioactivity on Earth is does not produce enough helium compared to how fast we use it (other comments here seem to already show the math, but the entire Earth only produces about 3000 metric tons a year of helium from decay). But that is usually not discussed, because it is pointless, as there is a huge amount of accumulated helium worth thousands of years of current usage in the atmosphere and the lithosphere, and it is more a question about where it is naturally concentrated.

    6. Re:We're saved! by ultranova · · Score: 1

      And it has taken those rocks billions of years to build up the current stockpiles of Helium, which we will deplete in 100 years or so.

      No, the helium is leaking out the faster the more of it there is, so the reservoirs fill until they reach their balance point and then stay there. From empty to full could take a billion years, or it could take 2 hours. It would probably be better to think of them as springs than reservoirs, in terms of production rate rather than storage volume.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    7. Re:We're saved! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      . It would probably be better to think of them as springs than reservoirs, in terms of production rate rather than storage volume.

      That doesn't follow at all considering if this took a billion years to fill, it would be producing only 8 cubic feet a year. That would be enough to fill a single, small consumer sized balloon tank a year. And it certainly didn't take a couple hours to fill, as the estimated size of the reservoir amounts to about 40000 metric tons of helium, and the net flux of helium out of the Earth's crust is about 1500 metric tons per year. Even if that reserve somehow magically collected all the helium leaking out of the area under all of Africa, it would have taken more than 500 years to fill up, and would fall short of being able to supply half of the current US usage of helium.

  15. Re:REMEMBER THE HINDENBURG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That was hydrogen, you moron.

  16. Re:153 to 207? "Game changer"!?!?! Exaggerate much by Qzukk · · Score: 1

    We're all playing tiddlywinks now!

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  17. Re:REMEMBER THE HINDENBURG! by bobbied · · Score: 1

    Yea, nobody remembers that they fire bombed London using those Zeppelin things during WW1 and killed a bunch of people, at least on this side of the pond. Londoners tend to remember that and what happened to them during WW2. All we have is the B&W news reel footage of the incident in Lakehurst NJ and a simple little sign that shows where it took place because not that many Americans died.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  18. Handy for my future airship by reemul · · Score: 1

    That's going to be really useful once I finally win the lottery and buy an airship.

    --
    You're just jealous 'cuz the voices talk to *me*
    1. Re:Handy for my future airship by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Hydrogen, baby!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:Handy for my future airship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw this documentary once that suggested that using hydrogen in an airship made of cotton coated with solid rocket booster fuel is not the wisest design.

    3. Re:Handy for my future airship by maliqua · · Score: 1

      Well just to be safe you should paint it in thermite

  19. Soon to be a non-issue by Locke2005 · · Score: 2

    As soon as we get cost-effect fusion energy, we'll have all the helium we could want. Inhale all you want, we'll make more! Long term, I see no real need to stockpile helium.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Soon to be a non-issue by subreality · · Score: 1

      Fusion consumes very little fuel, and therefore creates very little helium. If we converted the entire planet to 100% fusion energy it would still be several orders of magnitude short of our helium demand. https://www.reddit.com/r/asksc...

    2. Re:Soon to be a non-issue by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      If we did have cheap fusion power, we could use it to extract helium from the atmosphere directly. There's trillions of tons of it in the atmosphere which is currently too energy-intensive to extract.

  20. Re:REMEMBER THE HINDENBURG! by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

    Hydrogen, combined with a rather flammable paint scheme. Mythbusters did this. http://www.discovery.com/tv-sh...

    No Helium involved, which if you'll remember your high school Chemistry class, is a Noble Gas (doesn't burn, doesn't react)

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  21. Re:REMEMBER THE HINDENBURG! by Deadstick · · Score: 4, Informative

    He seems to know a great deal more about it than you do. The Germans used hydrogen because the US had a monopoly on helium and wouldn't sell them any, thanks to their using zeppelins in WW1. Verstehen Sie?

  22. Helium production via nuclear fusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another reason we need fusion reactors.

  23. We better get some Airships now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want dirigibles to be a common sight, now that we don't have as big a shortage, we can have blimps? please

  24. Good news but by Kindaian · · Score: 1

    Not a game changer.

    Helium like any other rarer materials should be handled more careful.

  25. I want our government slow and inefficient by raymorris · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > Nobody ever said Government was smart and foreword thinking about what it does. In fact, most thinking people understand that it's quite the opposite, government is usually stupid, slow, costly and inefficient, a set of traist that gets worse as government gets bigger.

    I HOPE my government remains slow and inefficient. Holding public hearings, referendums, etc. is slow and inefficient. Giving the minority opinion a chance to speak their mind is slow and inefficient. It's much more faster and more efficient for a dictator to just declare government policy. Publishing proposed laws before for several days before they are voted on slows things down.

    It took from 1993 to 2010, seventeen years, to pass HillaryCare. I like that way much better than the alternative, which can be seen in North Korea, Cuba, and Syria. They don't bother with transparency laws, public bidding on government contracts, etc. That stuff is inefficient.

    1. Re:I want our government slow and inefficient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I HOPE my government remains slow and inefficient.

      Yes, they're doing a bang-up job on slow and inefficient with The War on Terror(TM), The War on Drugs(TM), and The War on Poverty(TM). The government you deserve...

  26. It's time for a new war ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... to overthrow the government of Tanzania for possessing weapons of mass destruction and exporting democracy.

  27. Probability suggests against just America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I found it odd that the United States of America would be the only place with big Helium reserves on Earth. Looks like I was right. I guess it just shows how much drilling the United States has been subjected to.

  28. Can always mine Uranus or Neptune by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Humanity can always mine Uranus or Neptune for Helium if it really has to.

  29. Re: 153 to 207? "Game changer"!?!?! Exaggerate mu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What they mean is "We're gonna change the game animals in Tanzania to get at this resource."

  30. There will never be a shortage of helium by XNormal · · Score: 1

    There will never be a shortage of helium. Only a shortage of really cheap helium.

    Helium is continuously produced by alpha decay of radioactive materials inside the earth. It exists in various concentrations in all natural gas reserves.

    Some of those reserves (e.g. some wells in Texas or the one now found in Tanzania) have unusually high helium concentrations, making production costs much lower. The U.S. government used the Texas wells to set up a strategic reserve in the early to mid 20th century (when zeppelins were still a thing, and later for the space race).

    Towards the end of the 20th century, it gradually sold this inventory into the market, effectively subsidizing it with tax paid by americans during the cold war. This created a disincentive for developing the capability of producing helium from lower grade sources. The uncertainty in the market raised prices, based on the perception of an impending shortage.

    Without the Tanzania find, the increased price would have eventually convinced someone to invest in the infrastructure for separating helium from lower grade sources, eliminating the dependency on the chances of finding high grade sources.

    Of course, if someone *had* done so, he would have been greatly disappointed by the Tanzania find reducing the price hurt the return on their investment. That's the risk of investing.

    --
    Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
    1. Re:There will never be a shortage of helium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Helium is continuously produced by alpha decay of radioactive materials inside the earth.

      At a rate slower than we currently extract and use helium.

      invest in the infrastructure for separating helium from lower grade sources, eliminating the dependency on the chances of finding high grade sources.

      It isn't simply a matter of building more infrastructure, but significant changes in costs that will force industries and science to find other, likely less efficient substitutes. Separation from lower quality natural gas sources easily costs an order of magnitude more and has finite capability. Extraction from the atmosphere has, relatively speaking, near unlimited capacity, but costs several orders of magnitude more. In that scenario, you have essentially no helium available in any sense comparable to today. If that doesn't count as a shortage, then by your definition no shortage anywhere exists as anything could be made in some small quantity at some expensive price.

  31. Gas belongs to Africa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hands off Europe and America!

  32. Re:REMEMBER THE HINDENBURG! by Buchenskjoll · · Score: 1

    The Hindenburg disaster was in 1937, there was no Kaiser. There was a hateful, little reichkanzler with a funny moustache.

    --
    -- Make America hate again!
  33. No, we are not running out by carbonates · · Score: 1

    As a geologist I have actually prospected for helium. The only reason there even appears to be a shortage, is that the US Government is still manipulating the price, and using an artificially low price to restrict the market. Natural gas fields are the major source of helium today, and many natural gas fields contain anywhere from a fraction of 1% to several percent helium. As helium is generated in the Earth by radioactive decay it migrates upward, often to be trapped in the same geologic structures that natural gas is trapped within. Gas shale reservoirs may be the only major gas reservoirs that do not contain much helium. Due to US Government controls on the helium reserve and the market, the price, and the supply have both not been a function of a true market. Federal dumping of National Helium Reserve stock into the market depressed the price of helium so much that it was being used as a cheap substitute for argon and other gases that have a much less limited supply. Now we have auctions, with a limited supply being sold, but still enough to destroy the market for new sources. Once the US Helium reserve is sold off, natural gas processors are likely to start capturing the helium they presently waste due to the economics of removing it from natural gas. Other countries have huge reserves as well, including Qatar 10.1 Billion cubic meters Algeria 8.2 Bcm Russia 6.8 Bcm Canada 2.0 Bcm China 1.1 Bcm And any country that produces natural gas has a potential addition to the supply. Sorry, but we will not be running out any time soon. It is true that once released to the atmosphere, helium will leave the planet, but if the price goes up enough, that waste is less likely to occur.

    1. Re:No, we are not running out by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Well that's reassuring. Not that I doubt you, however I've been told all my life that we're running out. Could you site something that can reassure me? I mean I'm sure you're really a geologist and you really know what you're talking about, however if I told someone else they'd probably make fun of me. Some guy on slashdot say's we're fine! Might be hard to believe, however some people on slashdot aren't what they say they are.

      I've always wondered why the hell we don't fill balloons up with hydrogen. Perfectly safe for that and it would also contribute to some cool party tricks igniting them. It's also eco-friendly.

  34. "Shortages are to come to an end" by fluffynuts · · Score: 1

    For a short 7 years if the reserve is all that it's cracked up to be and if consumption doesn't increase (ha! not a likely behaviour from our species).

  35. Two more words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sucki it China!

  36. You ignored the big one and got it wrong by dbIII · · Score: 1
    You ignored the big one and got it wrong - REPRODUCTION.
    "Conservatives" really like to fuck with laws around that.

    Please, I would love for you to point to anyone trying to pass modern anti sodomy laws.

    There were still people going to jail for that when I started university. Many of the "conservatives" pushing various bedroom red tape are much older than I am.

    1. Re:You ignored the big one and got it wrong by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but even Conservatives don't write the laws of nature, no matter how many times a guy pegges another guys ass, they will not get pregnant.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    2. Re:You ignored the big one and got it wrong by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Please stop pretending that you are far too stupid to understand that "They want lots of control in the bedroom and of peoples sex lives in general" is referring to a lot more than sodomy.
      Your post above is not even funny. Pretended mental illness rarely is.

    3. Re:You ignored the big one and got it wrong by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      You ignored the big one and got it wrong - REPRODUCTION.

      I can't help if you are talking about reproduction. Since no one is in your bedroom telling you and your wife they can't have sex, I can't imagine what you are trying to talk about.

      Now, if you are talking about abortion, which doesn't happen in a bedroom unless you are going the illegal route, that has to do with Murder being illegal, so yes, abortion should be illegal. You made the choice to have a kid when you had sex as that is one of the expected outcomes of the decision. Why should that kid be murdered because they are inconvenient to you?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    4. Re:You ignored the big one and got it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coren22 since apk pegged you up the butt making you butthurt giving birth to your signature bitch tactic https://slashdot.org/comments.... I'd recommend preparation H for you hahahahaha! Funniest part is you blasted yourself up the ass with your big mouth!

    5. Re:You ignored the big one and got it wrong by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      It looks like you are the butthurt one APK, posting as a third party agreeing with yourself, all the while having lost the argument.

      https://slashdot.org/comments....

      You lost by a measurable amount, so why don't you go home and think about what you can do to improve yourself instead of trying to tear other people down?

      https://slashdot.org/comments....

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    6. Re:You ignored the big one and got it wrong by dbIII · · Score: 1

      You really seem to be pushing that mental illness angle very hard.
      How about a serious discussion of the topic instead of some very strange and pathetic game?

    7. Re:You ignored the big one and got it wrong by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Sometimes I just have to respond to the crap flood from APK, he seems to think he is the best programmer/security person in the world, and it is important to remind him that no one agrees with him except himself acting like a third party.

      That response wasn't to you, though if you don't read at -1, you might never see any of his posts.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  37. Source conference presentation by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
    The abstract of the presentation is here.

    "New High-Grade Helium Discoveries in Tanzania"

    Gas seeps containing up to 10.6% helium have been discovered in Tanzania ... Despite this, discoveries of economic helium (0.3% â) are still only serendipitously found while searching for petroleum

    There's a datum for those who were debating the level of purity that is necessary for economical recovery and purification.

    The comment about "serendipitous discovery" on the back of petroleum is ... interesting. Since there certainly is exploration work going on in the area (what can I say that's in the public domain? Well, this conference was very worth attending.) But when they finish their abstract with this :

    The high concentrations of helium in the region are likely related to the heating and fracturing of the Archean Tanzanian Craton and Proterozoic Mozambique Belt by the younger arms of the East African Rift System (I get the feeling that they have (a) gas samples; (b) they know the samples are from near faults recorded from surface geological mapping [contrary to snark expressed up-thread, the Geological Survey of Tanzania are perfectly competent and have been working their valuable mineral resources for a century now]; (3) they don't have seismic to locate or delineate any actual traps (this is not too severe - there certainly is seismic available, for a price. Whether it covers their precise areas, I don't know, but there are traps in the region, just hard to get an exact handle on.)

    The paper is only an abstract, but I get from it that they're looking at the relations of He:Ne and He:Ar to try to work out the level of groundwater transport and the residence time, from which they get their resource estimate.

    Given enough development money, they might be in production in 10-15 years. If the market will support the development, which comments upthread about the sell-off of the US reserve of helium make unlikely, at least until the US glut is turned off.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    1. Re:Source conference presentation by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Fucking Slashdot's fucking lack of complex character fucking support!

      helium (0.3% Ã) a

      That should be a "greater than or equal to" sign. I.e. the lower limit for economic collection of helium from a natural gas source is 0.3%, but higher is better.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  38. Why does Coren22 need preparation H? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    secretary at MalwareBytes took a look at his source code and said it looked all good - by Coren22

    My code's verified by Mr. S. Burn of Malwarebytes

    "I've seen the code and yes it is safe." FROM http://forum.hosts-file.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4290

    NOT a secretary!

    I don't give it away to be stolen or misused like GOOGLE CHROME http://it.slashdot.org/story/15/10/20/1254225/efast-malware-hijacks-browser-with-chrome-clone

    won't demonstrate security of his product be exposing the source - by Coren22 (1625475)

    57 antiviruses show different https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/

    MalwareBytes' employee hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Download

    * EAT YOUR WORDS Coren22

    APK

    P.S.=> See subject - & remember a lesson Google had w/ Chrome above (even gov't.'s not opening all their code & same reason https://slashdot.org/submission/5780853/dhs-walks-back-comments-on-feds-open-source-policy OR what security pros see too https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2016/04/28/attackers-use-open-source/ )