Is the theory of Helium occurring in Natural gas validated ?

[Duckster]

@Machine_Elf

But if helium is being produced by radioactive processes inside the earth, then there’s a replenishment taking place. So are we actually using it up faster than it’s being produced?

Why Is There a Helium Shortage?

It’s not just about kids balloons and squeaky voices, either.

Helium goes into a lot more than balloons. Because the gas is inert and has extreme melting and boiling points—both near absolute zero—scientists use it in cryogenics, high-energy accelerators, arc welding, and silicon wafer manufacturing. A severe reduction in the availability of helium could force hospitals to replace costly MRI magnets or restrict patient access to them.

[Chronos]

To get a stable isotope of helium you need two protons and two neutrons.

Actually, two protons and one neutron is also stable. It’s just incredibly rare because so little of it is produced: Most ways of producing helium, it’s a lot easier to end up with 2 and 2. But if you do end up with helium-3 somehow, it’ll stick around. It’s also valuable for a variety of scientific purposes.

[Lemur866]

@Shosy

Okie, was just asking…btw I did account for the escape of an electron

Right, but then you get a nucleus with two protons and no neutrons. That nucleus is incredibly unstable and will fission into two protons.

Chronos brings up a good point. The mixture of elements and the ratio of isotopes of those elements in the universe is due to two things. The nuclear processes that form the elements, and the nuclear processes that destroy the elements. So lots of uncommon isotopes are actually stable, but there’s no common process to form them, others are commonly formed but are very unstable.

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

@Chronos

This is also true of all gases in the atmosphere, and yes, we’re losing those, too. But since they’re heavier but have the same range of energies (due to being at the same temperature), it’s a smaller proportion of those gases that can escape, and thus we lose the heavier gases slower.

Do we lose the heavier gases at all, really? I mean the ones that are heavier than the typical composition of air. Do we have to worry that our supply of argon and krypton is going to float away?

I was looking at an early 1960s edition of the World Book Encyclopedia’s annual supplement, which described a method being developed to extract helium from natural gas. The idea was to divert the flow of NG from the local mainline pipe to a cracking plant where the helium would be collected. Then the NG would be returned to the pipeline. Obviously, that never worked out.

Damn, the early 1960s were an optimistic time. It seemed there was nothing we thought we wouldn’t be able to do eventually.

[Chronos]

We do lose heavy gases like krypton, but at a slower rate than we lose nitrogen and oxygen, so it’s not anything to worry about: Long before we find ourselves with a krypton shortage, we’ll have the much more pressing problem of an oxygen shortage.

[Francis_Vaughan]

The idea was to divert the flow of NG from the local mainline pipe to a cracking plant where the helium would be collected. Then the NG would be returned to the pipeline. Obviously, that never worked out.

Odd, that is pretty much how it is done. However the term “cracking” is wrong, as there is no chemical process involved. Helium is extracted from natural gas by liquefying the gas. The different temperatures that the gasses liquefy get you fractionation of the gasses. This is of course pretty energy intensive, so there is not much incentive unless energy is dirt cheap, someone is paying, or you are liquefying anyway. In the days of the Natioanl Helium Reserve, the US taxpayer was paying, and the wells involved had particularly s high proportion of helium. It has now become commercially viable to do mass liquefaction of natural gas, and some new plants will be producing helium as a by-product. Plants in Qatar and Australia in particular.

[Francis_Vaughan]

@Chronos

Actually, two protons and one neutron is also stable. It’s just incredibly rare because so little of it is produced: Most ways of producing helium, it’s a lot easier to end up with 2 and 2. But if you do end up with helium-3 somehow, it’ll stick around. It’s also valuable for a variety of scientific purposes.

One assumes that the relative proportion might give some clue as to the mechanisms of production, and at least provide some support to the OP’s question. One would guess that helium in wells was essentially all [sup]4[/sup]He, whilst atmospheric helium, might have a very slightly different proportion of [sup]3[/sup]He. How about inter-stellar space or helium production in the big bang, or within the solar system? Different? Different enough that there are clues to processes involved?

[Chronos]

[sup]3[/sup]He is essentially all primordial, meaning it was produced in the Big Bang ([sup]4[/sup]He is also believed to be largely primordial, but you can’t tell the primordial atoms from those produced via fusion or alpha decay). And it would certainly be reasonable to expect that there might be a different proportion of it in the atmosphere versus in underground gas reservoirs, but I don’t know any details of that.