A Review of the Sustainability of Helium: An Assessment of Its Past, Present and a Zero-Carbon Future

Abstract

Helium, as a by-product of the natural gas industry, will be impacted by the decline in consumption of fossil fuels as the world moves towards net-zero carbon emissions. In September 2022, all assets relating to the US government’s previous helium industry were sold. In the US, helium is now only available from private suppliers. In June 2022, Russia banned the export of helium to “unfriendly” countries, highlighting the geopolitical issues surrounding the industry. In the past, helium was popularized, and the industry was supported by its military applications (filling dirigible aircraft, welding fighter jets and purging rocket engines). It also plays an important role in supporting present-day technologies (e.g., MRI machines and spectroscopy) and will also be important for a high-tech future (e.g., in quantum computing, fusion power, and space exploration). Shortages of helium will inevitably cause skyrocketing prices and consequently lead to significant challenges for research and development (as has happened in the past) and technological progress, as well as a slowdown in world economic growth and prosperity. Anticipated declines in natural gas production, associated with moves towards net-zero carbon emissions targets, make helium less accessible. While this is problematic for industry in the short term, it perhaps preserves some low entropy helium within the ground, making it more accessible to future generations. Given anticipated limitations to the future supply of helium, technological developments are currently focused on a few areas: the replacement of helium by other gases in industrial applications, changing technological approaches to not require helium, and reducing the cost of obtaining helium from the atmosphere. This paper explores the past, present and future of helium, focusing on the sustainability of the helium industry.

1. Introduction

The non-renewable noble gas helium poses particular challenges in the approach to the fossil fuel transition. With the increasing number of pledges for carbon neutrality by 2050 or early in the second half of this century, there have been calls to transition away from fossil fuel consumption [1]. There are many alternatives to fossil fuels, such as energy production (renewable energy, nuclear energy, etc.) and transportation (electric, hydrogen, or biofuel vehicles). In these cases, the transition from fossil fuels appears to be a direct substitution of energy sources, resulting in a limited impact on the end user. However, there are fewer alternative approaches for some of the by-products of the petroleum industry. This paper explores the potential side effects of the zero-carbon transition on the helium industry. Helium is an example of a critical by-product of the natural gas production industry [2]. Subsurface reserves of helium are considered limited and unsustainable in the long term [3]. Shortages of helium have also been regularly experienced due to increases in demand [4] and, more recently, due to embargos and export bans being applied to helium-supplying nations, including Qatar in 2017 [5] and Russia in 2022 [6]. However, if natural gas production were to decline and potentially cease during the first half of this century, the helium supply would also decline. Ultimately, the majority of existing helium resources could become expensive to extract and potentially legally inaccessible. In this circumstance, the remaining options for obtaining helium would require a much higher market price, and this would have a significant impact on scientific research and across the medical field, among others.

Helium cannot be manufactured; it is a noble gas element. Its current primary source on Earth is the production of alpha particles during ongoing radioactive decay within the Earth. The rate of helium production in the crust is 3 × 10³ t per year [7]. Some economic models assume that helium generated through radioactive decay can ultimately be extracted for use (i.e., [8]), thus concluding that the geological extraction of helium can continue indefinitely. However, helium production is diffused across the crust, so only a tiny fraction of helium produced through radioactive decay will be retained within the crust, and an even smaller proportion will migrate to natural gas reservoirs. The majority of helium gas produced in the crust rises to the Earth’s surface and enters the atmosphere, from which it ultimately escapes slowly into space [3]. In a few locations, rock formations form reservoirs and traps where gases accumulate. These have primarily been tapped by humankind for methane-bearing natural gases, but many reservoirs also contain a proportion of helium. The earliest observation of the accumulation of helium alongside natural gas was published in 1906 [9], with a reported concentration of 1.84%. The highest observed/reported concentration is about ~8% [10]. Helium is extracted alongside natural gas and is generally separated via low-temperature condensation. Extraction of helium is currently viable where concentrations exceed about 1% for gas extraction or ~0.1% for liquid natural gas (LNG) extraction [3]. This is a lower value because the gas is already being cooled and liquified; hence, further cooling to extract helium is relatively cheaper. The viable concentrations are approximate; they vary depending on the price of helium. Helium supply is directly correlated with natural gas supply as it is separated from natural gas. Significant investment in helium separation equipment is required to allow its extraction from a natural gas stream. In the majority of locations, this investment has not been made, resulting in all helium in these natural gas streams being lost to the atmosphere when the natural gas is burned.

2. Review Methodology

The last major review of the future of the helium industry was published in a book in 2012 [11]. Since that time, there have been many major changes across the industry, the key one being the closure of the US helium reserve in 2022. Some elements of the early history of the helium industry have become more readily available due to the digitization of the Congressional Record. This has allowed the early discussions around the helium industry, which took place within the US Congress, to be more easily accessed and analyzed. For this review, the search term “helium” was used to identify every mention of helium within the US Congress (Senate, House, including committees). These mentions were reviewed manually for references to the helium industry, particularly references to sustainability. This review has also made substantial use of the US Geological Survey Mineral Commodity Summaries and Yearbooks for helium statistics.

Recent plans have been made across the world to reduce the consumption of natural gas and meet carbon emissions targets. This industrial shift has had a large impact on helium. Part of the motivation of this review is to analyze the impact of a transition from natural gas and its implications for helium sustainability in the context of the history of the helium industry. To pursue this, a search was carried out using the terms “helium” and “sustainability” using both the Google Scholar and Web of Science databases, limiting to all publications after Nuttell et al. [4]. Every English language journal article from 2012 to 2022 was reviewed manually for relevance to the application, alternatives, and sustainability of helium into the future.

3. Uses of Helium

Helium is highly valuable because of its many unique properties [12,13]. It is the second-lightest element and the second-lightest gas behind hydrogen. As a noble gas, it is unreactive. Its only atomic interactions are weak London dispersion forces—this allows it to be a liquid to absolute zero under normal pressures. Helium has the lowest melting and boiling points of all the elements and thus cannot be replaced by any element for very cold temperature applications. Helium has high buoyancy due to its low mass/density. Helium is also highly mobile, difficult to contain, to the extent that it can slowly diffuse through rock or metal [14]. These properties lead to several key uses for helium (Figure 1): for lifting, for example, in balloons, in preference to hydrogen, which is flammable [14]. Helium is used as a coolant and used for cryogenic applications. Primarily and critically, this is applied to create superconductors that require very low temperatures, such as those used in Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) in medical settings [3,15]. Helium is also used in the following: in high-temperature welding where oxygen and other reactive gases must be excluded; in purging and leak detection, particularly for rockets; and within breathing gases (i.e., underwater), including Trimix, Heliox, and Hydreliox. Liquid helium is used in a range of scientific applications, such as for mass spectrometry, quantum computing [16] and particle accelerators [17]. Helium is also non-reactive at high temperatures, allowing it to be used as a heat transfer fluid in the Brayton cycle, for example, in high-temperature solar power plants [18]. Its low heat capacity has led to its use in Stirling engines [19], although Chagatai and Sheykhi [19] also note that hydrogen is a more efficient gas (ignoring safety concerns). Helium has also had an increasing role in high-tech manufacturing, such as in the semiconductor (chip manufacturing) industry and fiber-optic production [20]. For these applications, its cryogenic properties, chemical inertness and heat transfer characteristics are all critical [21]. In summary, helium is a unique element that has applications across multiple industries and scientific endeavors.

Given the industrial importance, evident scarcity, and limited sourcing possibilities of helium, as well as the potential breadth of such a discussion, we refer the intrigued reader to a range of papers that analyzes the cost–benefit and economic evaluation aspects of sourcing helium as a by-product as well as the market as a whole. The authors of [22] analyze the helium market in terms of a Circular Economy framework, whereas the authors of [23,24] conduct multi-stage economic evaluations of its recovery process.

4. The History of the Helium Industry

4.1. The Rise and Fall of the Helium Airship Industry (1903–1937)

The major events in the history of helium are summarised in Figure 2, with the details discussed in the following sections. Helium was discovered alongside natural gas in 1903 in the USA in Dexter, Kansas [9]. Natural gas refers to the combination of gases found in naturally occurring reservoirs below ground. As mentioned above, helium is commonly extracted from the ground, where it occurs alongside hydrocarbon gases (methane, ethane, propane, etc.). However, it should be noted that reservoirs rich in helium commonly have elevated levels of other gases, particularly nitrogen [25].

Much of the early history of helium occurred in the USA, and much of the interest in helium throughout history is based on its military and strategic applications. The first military applications of helium were proposed by Géza Austerweil in the book Applied Chemistry in Aviation, published in German in 1914 [25]. These applications were, however, never applied in Germany and were not thought possible due to a lack of cheap helium. However, in 1916, the UK attacked and brought down the German Zeppelin LZ 76; despite the British attack with incendiary munitions, it did not catch fire as dirigibles normally did, and so it was intensely studied [26]. Believing that Germany actually had non-flammable helium airships (when they did not), the British military started searching natural gas wells across the British Empire for sources of helium; ultimately, they began extraction and separation of helium in Canada in 1918 [27]. This extraction was a collaboration between the University of Toronto and the company L’Air Liquide, which was the first company to produce helium commercially at a plant in Hamilton, Ontario. The concentration of helium in this area was 0.1–0.33% [25], much lower than in the US gas fields.

Because of the higher concentrations of helium in the reservoirs in the USA, the British Empire also started trying to purchase helium from the USA. Initially, the neutrality of the USA at the start of World War I (WWI) prevented any investment in helium within the USA. However, after the USA joined WWI in 1917, requests from the British military for the purchase of helium launched the US helium industry.

The extraction, separation, and purification of helium within the USA started in 1918. Helium deliveries to France and Britain did not, however, occur until just after the end of WWI [25]. This early work in the USA was carried out as a partnership between companies and the US military. Ultimately, with the end of WWI, the demand for helium for military purposes plummeted, and helium production in the USA also declined in 1919 [25]. However, the development during the war greatly lowered the price of helium production, which opened up opportunities for later scientific experimentation.

Helium is mentioned within 2609 documents in the US congressional record (accessible online here: www.congress.gov (accessed on 23 September 2023) from 1919–2022. The first searchable mention of helium occurs on 20 June 1919 (ignoring an optical character recognition error of the word “bellum” in 1916) [28]:

“The adoption of this amendment will effect the conservation of helium, the non-combustible gas, most essential in the use of dirigibles”.

And further:

“Helium, would come under a proviso of this kind, and as helium is now being developed in certain large quantities on a commercial basis, and as that gas is used largely in the Army and Navy dirigible work”.

Then:

“This is an industry which is needed in times of peace and war. Helium tends to afford, in peace, safety from accident; in war, safety from attack. Both in peace and war, therefore, many lives will be saved because of the use of it”.

Shortly after this, on 23 June 1919, in the Congressional Record of the Senate [29], there is a discussion of the visit of a British R34 Class dirigible (nicknamed “Tiny”) to the USA. Part of this discussion included the identification that the USA at the time did not have any facility at which the dirigible could be anchored. The War Department was engaged in building a “huge concrete anchor” at Mineola, Long Island for this purpose. It was proposed that if the other “great nations” have such dirigibles, then the USA should construct them, especially given the availability of helium [29].

An amendment on 28 June 1919 authorized the construction of one large rigid dirigible and the purchase of another dirigible “of the latest type” from the British [30] alongside supporting a helium plant for these airships. Several discussions in the following months relate to the military effectiveness of airships (sometimes called “war balloons”), e.g., their potential use in dropping poisonous gases on cities from great heights (in a future war). It is very clear that military considerations funded the growth of the helium industry with a primary focus on the airship industry. This military demand led to investment and a reduction in the cost of separating helium from natural gas, which made it financially viable for other purposes. Later that year (1919), the first discussion of an act was held for keeping all helium in the USA under the control of the government [31]:

“Provided, that all right, title, and interest to all helium in the lands or deposits subject to disposition under this act are hereby expressly reserved and shall remain in the Government of the United States”.

The US Navy recommended the banning of the export of helium in January 1920 [32]. Following this, the reservation of helium for the government was passed in the Oil Leasing Bill on 25 February 1920.

Linde Air Products, the most successful private company during the trials of helium extraction techniques, continued building its new plant, which started operations in April 1921 [33]. The US also started researching other scientific applications for helium with the launch of the Cryogenic Research Laboratory in Washington, DC [25]. This was the first site where the scientific investigation of helium’s properties, beyond its use as a lifting gas for military purposes, was carried out.

The Linde Air Products plant was able to produce so much helium within 1921 that it shut down on 30 November 1921 due to insufficient purchases [34]. The large volumes of helium were also produced only from 15% of the natural gas stream, and 85% of the natural gas was utilized as fuel without helium extraction [35]. The government was considering making additional purchases of helium from the Linde Air Products plant for military airships. However, this was delayed by the crash of the airship Roma (filled with hydrogen) in February 1922 and the ensuing discussions in Congress around the unreliability of airships and the perceived high cost of the helium program [36]. In fact, after the construction of the plant, the cost of helium extraction was quite low—an analogy was made in Congress to the construction of a shoe factory using USD one million and then manufacturing one pair of shoes for USD 5, calculating the cost of the shoes as USD one million and USD 5 would not be correct [36]. The low price of helium extraction allowed the plant to be restarted later that year [25].

The next key milestone was the Helium Act of 1925 (43 Stat. 1110 (Pub. Law 68-544)). This act authorized the federal government to acquire land where helium gas might be produced and established the national helium reserve at the Cliffside Field near Amarillo, Texas. The US government, via the Bureau of Mines, did not, however, remain the sole supplier of helium for a long time. The Gridler Corporation opened plants in Dexter, Kansas and Thatcher, Colorado, in 1927. However, on 3 March 1927, an act banning the overseas sale of helium and also banning non-governmental use within the USA was passed [25]. This caused problems for these private plants, but they continued supplying the government for 10 years. They were, however, ultimately purchased by the government in 1938 following the 1937 Helium Act (50 Stat. 885 (Pub. Law 75-411)).

Supply for dirigible aircraft was the reserve’s main use up to the 1950s. The US Navy maintained a large balloon fleet for military purposes in the 1920s and 1930s (Figure 3). However, helium airship disasters were experienced regularly through the 1920s and 1930s (Figure 4). The most significant losses were the USS Akron (the largest helium airship to exist), which was destroyed during a thunderstorm in 1933 and likewise, its sister ship, the USS Macon, was lost in 1935. The loss of the USS Macon brought to an end the majority of the US military demand for helium. However, outside the USA, airship disasters in the late 1930s relating to the combustibility of hydrogen (particularly the German airship LZ 129 Hindenburg and the Russian airship СССР-В6 Осoавиахим), created a greater demand for helium to replace hydrogen. The combination of these factors led to the leasing of helium to private companies in 1936 [25], then the authorization of commercial (non-military) sale of helium for aeronautics from 1937 (50 Stat. 885 (Pub. Law 75-411)). This reversed the ban on the sale of helium from 1927. Then, with the invention of faster and more reliable aircraft during World War II (WWII), interest in airships for military purposes declined. Sales of government land that were no longer producing helium were authorized in 1954 (68 Stat. 530 (Pub. Law 83-527)), reversing the remaining elements of the ban from 1927.

4.2. A Vision of a Technological Future for Helium (1937–1970)

The international sale of helium after 1937 led to a widening of scientific investigations of helium’s properties and uses. For example, its application in diving breathing mixtures [37] and its use in high-temperature welding, particularly for magnesium welding in aircraft fabrication during WWII [38]. Thus, the military applications of helium continued to drive demand. At the end of WWII, however, demand for helium suddenly reduced, and most helium production plants were shut down. However, demand for helium, primarily for welding, grew steadily into the 1950s, causing the reactivation of all helium plants by 1955. The first major shortage of helium occurred on 1 May 1958, when the Secretary of the Interior announced a helium conservation policy [39]. Parade balloons were filled with air, not helium, that year and were held up by giant cranes during Macy’s Thanksgiving Day parade in New York [40].

By the late 1950s, possible high-tech applications for helium were envisaged for the future (primarily cryogenics and rocket technology), and there was a renewed interest in maintaining the strategic helium reserve in the USA. There were concerns that technological development would be stalled if helium prices became too high. The amendment to the Helium Act of 1960 imposed a legally binding price ceiling and, therefore, generated sales of helium at artificially low prices. The act states: “Helium shall be sold for medical purposes at prices which will permit its general use therefore” (74 Stat. 918 (Pub. Law 86-777).

This 1960 act also authorized extensive sourcing of helium funded through debt, the intention being that the debt would be repaid via increasing future demand, which ultimately did not materialize. Further, the price ceiling imposed by the amendment to the Helium Act of 1960 might have led to a market failure at the time of its inception, leading to a shortage due to the artificially low price and the disequilibrium between its supply and its demand. The primary interest in helium at this time was for the purging of rocket systems for military and space exploration purposes, including the political impetus and drive behind the space race. In the 1960s, there were concerns about future shortages of helium. These were based on the anticipation of the increasing pace of technological development and the increasing use of helium at that time; it was assumed that large amounts of helium would be needed into the 1970s and 1980s. There was concern that supply would not grow in line with rising demand, leading to an escalating price and subsequent decrease in the quantity traded within the market. The 1960 Act, therefore, authorized the stockpiling of helium in the Bush Dome Reservoir in Texas. It was intended that the debt would be paid off through an increase in the future price of helium. However, the government’s monopoly of helium production and relatively high sale prices created an opportunity for more productive private industry to undercut this price and make a profit. The first non-government plant opened in 1962 in Arizona [25]. Another helium production plant was opened in Saskatchewan, Canada, in 1963. By the end of 1968, sixteen plants would be producing helium, with all of the private plants producing at a price lower than the government could sell at, therefore making the governmentally imposed price ceiling ineffective.

4.3. The Decline of the Helium Industry (1970–1990)

With the end of the space race and the start of the Cold War, demand for helium declined while supply remained high, ultimately leading to a drop in its price. The US government had started contracts to purchase helium with some companies, but other private companies had started to supply industry at prices below that required to recoup treasury investments. The government’s underground storage volumes were very high in 1970 (0.8 billion cubic meters). This meant that the program became increasingly indebted with continued contractual purchases of helium without rising prices [14]. Contracts for the purchase of helium produced by the private sector were terminated on 26 January 1971 [41]. The cancellation resulted in chains of litigation from the natural gas companies that were unable to sell their helium [42]. Initially, companies continued to make delivery of helium to the Bureau of Mines for storage and paid the cost of the storage. The helium was held in an account by private companies. The supplying companies achieved initial success in the courts; court injunctions against terminating the contracts for helium purchases meant that helium was accepted until 12 November 1973. After this time, much helium was vented into the atmosphere as private companies were still extracting it as a by-product of their natural gas production.

On 6 June 1974, the Helium Storage Act of 1974 was introduced in the House of Representatives. This Act would have required the storage of private helium in the Bush Dome Reservoir at no cost to the private company producer. This bill never became law. However, since 1975, private companies have been allowed to store private helium in the government reserve at a nominal charge to reduce the amount being vented to the atmosphere [25]. Because helium is not normally extracted for its own sake, its supply is determined almost entirely by the supply of and demand for natural gas. With the government helium reserve at a healthy level, but with increasing demand for natural gas during the 20th century, helium was produced in volumes that far exceeded its demand. This started a debate on the future of helium. Should it be stored for scientific use (which would occur decades into the future) at a cost to both the then and future governments, or should it be vented to the atmosphere as a waste product?

Arguments were put forward on both sides [10,14,42,43,44], including in the US Congress with the Helium Energy Act of 1979, which aimed to expand US helium reserves. This act did not make it past the committee stage, so it never became law. The early economic arguments were for paying for storage at that time, removing the burden from future generations on the basis of the uncertainty of the helium market. The scientific arguments focused on maintaining the reduced entropy of helium within geological storage and, thus, its usability for future generations. The later economic arguments concluded primarily that the cost of separation and storage far outweighed the benefit [45]. Ultimately, this later economic argument was accepted. The ongoing litigation in the 1970s and early 1980s prevented additional government purchases and storage of helium, as this might imply the government’s liability in the ongoing legal battles over the cancelation of contracts to purchase helium in the early 70s [44].

In the mid-1980s, privatization became a key US government goal. Discussions about the sale to private industry of government-owned helium reserves started gaining momentum. The aim of this was to deplete this reserve, support private industry in generating supply and allow for the rising price of helium to occur slowly to support industries that are reliant on helium (mainly scientific and medical end users). An additional benefit is that this would also provide short-term additional revenue to the US treasury [44].

During the development of new privately owned gas fields such as the Riley Ridge Natural Gas Project in the mid-1980s, the extraction of helium for this project would have been unprofitable at the market rate, with the US government unwilling to pay for helium separation, storage and supplying increasing amounts of stored helium from its national reserve; a large quantity of helium might have been vented to atmosphere. However, Exxon opened a helium refining plant in 1986 at Riley Ridge, becoming a major US private helium producer, rivaling the scale of government production capacity.

Directly following this, the privatization sale of the Bureau of Mines’ Exell helium production plant was discussed in 1987 [46]. The basis of the case for sale is that if private industry could supply helium, then why should the government continue to do so? This argument was, and is, in line with the narrative that privatization is preferred to the government organizing production itself. Schumpeter [47] and Vickers and Yarrow [48] argue that, as it has been theoretically and empirically analyzed for decades, privately owned firms are more productive and, therefore, more cost-efficient.

The Exell plant, extracting helium from natural gas, was used to replenish helium stocks in the government reserve. The discussion of its sale was as a part of the reduction of the government’s involvement in helium production, transferring this element to private industry (the plant was, however, never sold and was ultimately closed in 1998). The continued involvement of the government in the helium industry placed it in direct competition with the industry, which kept prices artificially low due to its large reserve. Government entities did not buy helium from the industry when they could buy it at a lower price from the government stockpile. However, the demand for helium has always been lower than that for potential supply because there has always been high natural gas usage. Krupka and Harmnel [45] correctly state:

“If natural gases were not now being used for fuel, there would be no controversy over helium conservation. The helium would simply remain stored in the earth”.

Venting of helium into the atmosphere by private industry, where it is unprofitable to separate from natural gas, has been a normal practice throughout history. This, in addition to the loss of helium during use, has resulted in a measured increase in the concentration of helium in the atmosphere of 39 billion +/− 3 billion mol per year between 1974 and 2020 [49]. Given that 1 m³ of gas at standard temperature and pressure contains 44.64 mol, this is equivalent to ~870 million m³ of helium per year. This is somewhat higher than the tens of millions of cubic meters of helium extracted from government storage during these years (Figure 5).

As the helium reserve had been funded by debt in the 1960s, by 1996, it owed the US government USD 1.33 billion [50]. This fact and the prior discussions of privatization ultimately led to the 1996 Helium Privatization Act (110 Stat. 3315 (Pub. Law 104-273)). This act required the US government to cease production, refining and marketing of helium within 18 months (leading to the closure of the Bureau of Mines’ Exell Helium Plant discussed earlier). This law also required the sale of the US Helium Reserve, reducing it to a volume of 17 million cubic meters before January 2015. Due to this Act, between about 1999 and 2014, the US Helium Reserve released ~120,000 metric tons of helium onto the market, meeting one-third of demand during this period [51]. The price of this supply only increased at the value of the consumer price index (CPI). Because of the volume of supply, up until approximately 2013, the price of helium was predominantly determined by the US Bureau of Land Management sales, which were set out by the 1996 act [7]. Initially, this caused private industry to artificially raise their prices to match the prices of the Bureau of Land Management. However, in later years, the Bureau’s price was considered to be below the market value.

4.4. Helium Shortages, Challenges for Scientists (1990–2012)

Given the large volumes of helium being released, there was limited incentive for private industry to invest in helium extraction and storage during these years. The shortages of helium experienced in 2004 and between 2008 and 2012 resulted primarily in rationing, as increases in price only occurred at the rate of CPI inflation from the US Reserve; this greatly limited the helium market within the USA. The main cause of these shortages is that the helium market cannot react quickly to changes in supply or demand; helium supply is almost perfectly inelastic and inflexible in relation to the sales price in the short term. The infrastructure required to extract more helium from natural gas sources takes time to construct, and helium cannot be successfully stored above ground for the long term; concentrations of helium in aboveground storage decrease over time as helium is lost from storage in the atmosphere. The low price of helium maintained by continuous supply also generated limited helium production outside of the USA, as there was little value in investing in helium production while supply was high and prices were low. In much of the world, helium was not separated from the natural gas stream, thus being vented to the atmosphere.

Internationally, helium was produced in Poland and Russia from 1971 [52] (Figure 6), Algeria from 1994 [53] and Qatar from 2007 [21]. Early production of small quantities of helium occurred in the Netherlands, France (1971–1979) and Canada [45]. Production continued in Canada from 1964 to 1977, and then it restarted in 2015. Countries with substantial reserves and increasing production volumes include Australia, Iran (which has the same natural gas field as Qatar), South Africa, China, and Canada [50]. In the 1990s in Russia, there were also calls to conserve helium for future generations [54]. Russia’s retained geological stocks of helium in the Amur gas field could provide helium for 30 years and perhaps beyond [50]. If helium separated from natural gas remains viable alongside global moves towards net-zero carbon emissions, then, due to their remaining reserves, Russia, Qatar, and Iran are likely to dominate global helium supplies from geological sources well into the future.

The helium shortage in 2004 was created by excessive purchasing by users following the accidental explosion of the Skikda helium production facility in Algeria [4,53], in addition to the reinstatement of the space shuttle program [21]. This shortage was, however, short-lived as supply was maintained. The helium supply shortages between 2006 and 2013 were primarily caused by increasing demand. In addition, the reduction in demand for fossil fuels during the 2008 recession also reduced the helium supply [25]. Researchers who generally consume small quantities of helium but at regular intervals experienced some of the worst delays in obtaining helium during this time. Given the difficulties of researchers working to 2–3-year project cycles, shortages of basic materials like helium generate major issues for research projects. Several publications around this time highlight concerns from the academic community [2,4,21]. One influential publication was the report from the Committee on Understanding the Impact of Selling the Helium Reserve of the National Research Council [51]. This is stated in its preface:

“In the course of its deliberations, members of the committee, scientists and non-scientists alike, were struck by the inordinate impact that increases in helium prices and its periodic scarcity are having on the small-scale science community. Unless structural changes are adopted … continued price increases and scarcities may result in these programs losing significant research capability”.

The committee concluded that the sale of the US reserve adversely affected critical helium users, particularly the scientific community and did not serve the national interest. The sale also had a negative impact on the global helium industry by limiting the price.

The committee preferred a much slower rate of sale, slowly increasing the price of helium and reserving supplies for scientific programs.

4.5. Final Closure of the Public Helium Industry and the Rise of the International Helium Market (2013–2022)

In 2013, the USD 1.33 billion debt the Helium reserves owed to the US treasury was paid off [3], leaving no further obligation for the reserve to sell helium. However, if it were to suddenly stop releasing helium, then the total supply would have dropped suddenly by 30%, leading to a skyrocketing price. Congress then passed the Helium Stewardship Act 2013 (127 Stat. 534 (Public Law 113-40)). This act had a number of key effects, primarily the further privatization of the helium industry. Annual auctions of a percentage of the remaining gas were directed to continue until 30 September 2021, selling all the stored helium with the exception of an 85 million cubic meter strategic reserve. The aim of this was to produce a tapering supply from the US reserve, allowing the private sector to take over the supply without producing a sudden shock in supply from the cessation of production.

In addition, the act required the sales of the helium gas reserve, the properties, facilities, equipment, personal properties, and interests of the federal helium system, all of which were to be sold by 30 September 2021. In 2013, the US Bureau of Land Management announced that it would comply with the act by auctioning off an increasing percentage of its remaining reserve annually until the reserves were depleted [50]. As asset sales had not been completed in 2021, all remaining assets were passed to the General Services Administration for final disposal on 30 September 2022 [55]. This date marks the end of the US government’s direct involvement in the helium industry, with all helium being provided by either the private sector or non-US entities. Given this, future helium prices will be determined more by forces driving supply and demand. The 2013 act also required the Department of Energy to support research and conservation efforts to improve helium supply to researchers and to support research into technologies for the extraction of helium from natural gas. Funds from the announced sales were to be used to upgrade US research facilities to be more helium efficient in order to support researchers [21]. Researchers in small facilities were urged to reduce helium demand by switching to other technologies or becoming more efficient in order to avoid future supply issues [3]. This was particularly focused on the use of cryostats and cryocoolers to reduce the losses of helium to the atmosphere during cryogenic research [56].

On 5 June 2017, a trade embargo in Qatar, at the time the second-largest supplier (32% of supplies) of global helium behind the USA, again generated concerns over helium shortages [5,57]. Ultimately, due to the importance of helium production in Qatar, helium supply was only halted from June to July 2017, when an alternative trade route was established [50]. Following this, the US government took steps to recognize the importance of helium as a resource in its own right, separate from the value of the fossil fuel it is co-located with. The Helium Extraction Act, which passed the US House of Representatives in 2017 and received a favorable review from the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources (Senate Report No. 115-391), has, however, not yet progressed to become law. If finally passed, this Act would allow the price of helium to be used to assess the overall viability of a natural gas resource on federal lands, increasing the potential to extract helium resources in the USA.

In December 2017, President Donald Trump signed an executive order, “A Federal Strategy to Ensure Secure and Reliable Supplies of Critical Minerals” (Executive Order 13817). Given the concerns around global supply at the time (e.g., the brief Qatar embargo), it is unsurprising that helium was listed as one of the critical minerals [58]. By November 2021, the embargo of Qatar had ended, and supplies of private helium in the USA from the natural gas industry were high and prices low, so helium was then removed from the list of critical minerals during the 2021 update [59,60]. The justification of this change states that there remain concerns due to the closure of the Federal Helium Reserve and also due to the move towards shale gas, which has low helium content. However, for the present, helium supply remains strong, and helium reserves are sufficient to last for many years. Helium was stated as a mineral to watch but not one of immediate concern.

Helium shortages and rising industry prices were experienced in 2019 and early 2020. In 2019, scientists had to shut down helium-consuming equipment [61]. The shortage in supply was anticipated to continue from 2021 to 2022 and will be alleviated by the opening of the Amur 1 and Amur 2 gas developments in Russia [50]. However, the events surrounding the Coronavirus pandemic added uncertainty, with predictions that falling oil/gas prices would lower helium production and create further supply shortages [62]. But, early during the pandemic, due to lockdowns, party balloons, which accounted for 10% of helium demand, stopped being used—this alleviated helium supply shortages for other users, including researchers [63].

A combination of factors led to helium shortages returning in early 2022. These include a leak at the Cliffside crude helium enrichment plant, in addition to a fire and explosion at the Amur plant in Russia in January 2022, which caused the plant to shut down [64]. In addition, two-thirds of the helium-producing liquified natural gas (LNG) plants in Qatar were closed for scheduled maintenance. Also, in response to the war in Ukraine, gas supplies from Algeria were diverted to Europe via an undersea pipeline, not allowing the normal separation of helium [64]. On 2 June 2022, Russia restricted the export of all inert gases, including helium, to “unfriendly” nations [6,65]. Russia accounted for less than 10% of global helium supplies in 2022. However, with the eventual opening of the Amur 1, 2, and 3 gas developments, Russia was projected to approach and potentially surpass Qatar as the largest helium-producing nation [50].

The economic models of helium resources have suggested that given the availability of helium within natural gas reserves, helium supplies should last well into the future [8,10,14,42,43,44,46,57]. However, Anderson [57] identifies a key issue with most economic models of the helium market:

“In general, existing models of helium either do not account for an oligopoly controlling supply, or they do not evaluate potential helium extraction and storage programs based on an intertemporal maximization of the value of the resource. Such models could be of very limited use to decision-makers”.

The recent, politically caused disruptions to the helium market outlined above indicate that they were correct.

To summarize, given the infrastructure barriers to developing new supplies of helium, supply shortages have occurred and are likely to continue to occur in the future. Scientists, representing the smallest helium purchasers, are the most adversely impacted by these shortages [61,63,64]. With the final sale of the assets of the US helium reserve on 30 September 2022, there are limited actions that the US government can take to mitigate international helium supply shocks that will occur in the future. In addition, no alternative large-scale helium storage facility exists which could smooth supply shocks.

5. Discussion

5.1. Helium Consumption, Demand and Storage

US consumption remained at approximately 20 million m³ through much of the 1960s and 1970s (Figure 7). Consumption then rose through the 1980s and 1990s, reaching a peak of ~90 million m³ during the late 1990s. With the closure of the US helium reserve, the work on raising the efficiency of US consumption starts to decline, but global consumption increases. In 1995, 70% of helium was consumed in the USA, with the total global consumption being approximately 90 million m³, whereas by 2012, this had dropped to ~43% of the total global consumption of 180 million m³ [51]. The global estimated helium reserves and resources are presented in

Table 1. Estimated reserves and resources of helium from USGS mineral commodity summaries 1996–2024.

Country	Estimated Reserve (Million Cubic Meters)	Estimated Resources (Million Cubic Meters)
United States	3900	20,600
Algeria	1800	8200
Poland	23	-
Qatar	Large	10,100
Russia	1700	6800
Rest of the world		6300

.

Given the uses of helium related to high-tech industries, its demand and, ultimately, its price are likely to continue to rise in the future. The average reported amount of time from production to consumption of helium is relatively short, between 45 and 60 days [12]. Helium is very challenging to store above ground. A comparison of helium with other gases illustrates the main challenges (Figure 8). Gases are stored in small quantities, such as pressurized gas, for short-term use. The transport of larger quantities of gas is commonly carried out using liquified gas (e.g., LNG, liquid hydrogen) using cryogenic containers. With a boiling point of 20.3 K, liquid hydrogen is challenging to transport as any thermal energy that enters the storage container will cause boil-off; the gas pressure must be released to avoid containers reaching unsafe pressures; this gas is vented to the atmosphere. For helium, the boiling point is 4.4 K; hence, boil-off results in more rapid loss. For the long-distance transport of hydrogen, reactions to form carrier molecules such as ammonia or methanol, etc., are considered as this results in a more efficient transport. In comparison, helium is a noble gas that is unreactive, so forming another molecule for long-term transport is not viable. As a consequence, helium is not stored across the long term, and there are no aboveground stockpiles of helium. Given this non-existent storage buffer, the helium market is highly susceptible to market shocks. While the long-term surface storage of helium is problematic, geological storage is possible, as demonstrated by the federal helium reserve. However, large-scale separation and storage by private companies on the scale carried out by the US government is unlikely to take place in the future [25].

Some studies have been critical of the wasteful usage of helium in party balloons [20]. However, if the “demand” for use in party balloons were removed, then the separation of helium from natural gas would be less valuable. Once helium has been extracted from geological storage as a by-product of natural gas production, its use in any application will not prevent it from ultimately being lost to the atmosphere and then to space [3]. Given this, using helium in party balloons only has an impact on its scientific use during times of helium shortage (e.g., 2004, 2006–2013, and the impact during the coronavirus pandemic in 2020).

Where helium is present in natural gas in low concentrations, or due to lack of demand, it is not economical to extract; it is commonly retained in the natural gas stream to the point of combustion. If its concentration is too high, purification circuits in natural gas processing plants are routinely installed and are used (where needed) to separate and vent helium along with other gases into the atmosphere [57]. Since helium is treated as a waste product, party balloons are no less wasteful than any other application.

5.2. Possible Alternatives to Helium

For some applications, the unique properties of helium mean that it cannot be replaced, whereas, for others, alternative gases or technologies can be used. For example, hydrogen can replace helium for some applications; however, the use of hydrogen raises safety considerations (flammability). If these safety concerns are addressed, then hydrogen can replace helium as a lifting gas for dirigibles, weather balloons, etc. [68], and also for manufacturing where thermal conductivity is important (some semiconductors, fiber optics, etc.). Hydrogen could also potentially be used for leak detection applications and gas chromatography.

For purposes where the chemical inertness of helium is key, such as welding of reactive metals, another noble gas, such as argon, can be used. For some cryogenic applications, hydrogen can be used as a substitute for helium [69], but not for the lowest temperature applications. For all of the above purposes, it is anticipated that as the price of helium rises, alternative gases will become more commonly used.

There are, however, several applications of helium that cannot be substituted by other gases. These primarily relate to cryogenic applications where temperatures of less than 17.15 °K are required, and for this, there are currently no alternatives to helium. This includes superconductivity (particularly MRI machines), superfluid behavior and other basic research, e.g., quantum computing, superconducting quantum interference devices etc. In addition, for rocket systems using liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen fuel tank systems, any purging gas other than helium would freeze; if liquid hydrogen and oxygen are not properly purged, there is a risk of explosion, which makes helium essential.

Next-generation high-temperature and very high-temperature nuclear reactors require helium as a coolant; given the high temperatures and thermal loads, there is no alternative to helium [51]. While there are alternatives to the use of helium in breathing gases, no other gases are as effective and as safe.

Scientific developments may ultimately commercialize different technological approaches that remove the requirement for helium for some applications. For example, work on high-temperature superconductors [70] may generate commercial alternatives to the low-temperature helium-cooled superconductors (e.g., for MRI). Focused research in these areas will be required to rapidly develop scientific solutions that can be commercialized. It should also be noted that while substitution of technologies can occur, it is not inevitable that new technologies will be found when working with unique elemental properties [71]. This is particularly the case with technological developments occurring within a fixed timeframe.

5.3. The Future of Helium Supplies

Studies of the future of helium focus on the available reserves associated with natural gas, of which the Qatari North Field is reported as having the largest reserve for the future [2]. Production from Qatar, in addition to increasing production in Russia, is anticipated to meet more than 50% of global helium demands before 2025 [50]. At least 100 years’ worth of geological helium supplies are available alongside natural gas [72]. However, in the past, political tensions have impacted the supply; for example, the blockade of Qatar (2017–2021) caused the closure of its helium refining plants [5]. Sourcing global supplies from a limited number of countries will increase this risk in the future. A further threat to the future of these supplies is the approach taken to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050; if the use of natural gas declines or ceases (as predicted), then the present geological sources of helium will become much more expensive to extract, with alternatives being potentially even more expensive. Even without considering net-zero targets, helium is predicted to become scarce by 2060 [73]. Several alternative sources of helium are outlined below. All of these possible sources are significantly more expensive to obtain than current supplies from natural gas reservoirs or should be excluded as they require greater or similar consumption of helium to obtain helium.

The nuclear fusion of hydrogen in a power plant could be used to produce helium; however, it is likely that such a power plant would use helium as a coolant [74], assuming that the design would be similar to high-temperature and very high-temperature nuclear fission reactors [75,76]. Due to the high thermal gradients and the need for a radiologically inert coolant [12], there are limited alternatives to helium cooling for these applications. In addition, the removal of excess helium from the reaction gases must take place for the fusion reaction to continue. This will require the cryogenic separation of helium from the deuterium and tritium, which can be returned to the reaction chamber. This process is likely to require a helium-based cryogenic system [74]. Helium is also currently used in the superconducting magnet systems used to control and confine the plasma in the reaction chamber. Calculations of helium production and loss in fusion power plants indicate that they will consume three times more helium than they produce [7]. Thus, nuclear fusion is unlikely to be a viable future source for meeting helium demand, and on the contrary, the development of this technology will probably increase the demand.

Bradshaw and Hamacher [7] indicate that technological developments might mitigate the demand for helium in fusion power plants (e.g., the development of high-temperature superconducting cables). In parallel, increases in cryogenic technology could also reduce calculated helium losses. The development of these technologies would, however, require a focused research effort and is unlikely to be possible to implement within a timescale aligning with that of net-zero carbon goals.

Reference has been made to helium sources around hot springs and monazite sands in India [2,77] and Tanzania [50]. These sources are not associated with natural gas, and they do not appear to have been developed at present. Without the additional revenue from natural gas to justify the cost of the extraction infrastructure, the economic viability of geothermal sites for helium extraction has been questioned [50]. As helium prices rise, this source may become more viable. Helium is generated from radioactive decay, not from petroleum source rocks, and as its migration pathway may be different from that of fossil fuel-rich gas, natural gases exist that have higher concentrations of helium with low concentrations of fossil fuel gases [25,78]. Typically, helium occurs alongside elevated levels of nitrogen and/or carbon dioxide; for example, the Harley Dome Field contains ~7% helium alongside a predominantly nitrogen natural gas [79].

Further discoveries of helium-rich natural gases may be made in the future if helium becomes a viable resource in the absence of other natural gases. Such helium resources require the same skills to identify and extract as are currently used in the petroleum industry [78]. However, as mentioned above, the Helium Extraction Act did not pass the Senate in the USA, so the value of helium cannot currently be considered when justifying the viability of a natural gas source on US federal land.

There has been some limited discussion of obtaining Helium-3 (He-3) from the moon [80] or from asteroids. He-3 is an isotope of helium containing two protons and one neutron, as opposed to the normal two protons and two neutrons in Helium-4 (He-4). He-3 is much rarer and more expensive than He-4 and is used in nuclear fusion research and for neutron detectors [20]. Neutron detectors have been used as a security measure in airports since the 9/11 attacks, greatly depleting stocks [81]. The higher value of He-3 could potentially justify the expense of reaching an extra-terrestrial source of helium in the future. He-4 could also be obtained alongside He-3 as a saleable by-product. However, as He-4 would normally be required to purge the rocket systems used to get to an extra-terrestrial body, the overall volume of He-4 recovered from the process as a whole would likely be small in comparison to market demand. Even the technological development of an alternative purging gas will not overcome the fact that He-4 would be a by-product of He-3 production and would, therefore, be produced at a much smaller volume than currently available from natural gas reservoirs. Even the viability of extraction of He-3 from this source has been questioned [82], with the suggestion that it in itself might also only be feasible as a by-product of another mineral.

The most well-recognised ultimate alternative source of helium is extraction from the atmosphere. This source of helium will be the main available source in the future [45]. The concentration of helium in the atmosphere is 5 ppm, which is 3–4 orders of magnitude lower than the concentration which is economical for extraction from natural gas reservoirs. As helium in natural gas was well known to be a finite resource, extraction from the atmosphere has been discussed for a long time as the solution to future helium shortages (e.g., [14]). Early estimates, just based on the concentration difference between those of natural gas reservoirs and the atmosphere, identified the price of extraction of helium from the atmosphere would be 3–4 orders of magnitude higher than the cost of extraction from natural gas sources [44]. Technological developments have reduced these costs; recently assumed costs of helium from the atmosphere range from USD 38 to USD 346 per cubic meter, with an average of USD 62 per cubic meter [57]. This represents an increase in the price of obtaining helium to eight times its current price.

One of the primary problems of the extraction of helium from the atmosphere is the huge volumes of gases that would need to be processed in order to obtain the quantities of helium to meet demand (hundreds of cubic kilometers of gas each day). If helium is extracted via cryogenic condensation, then all other atmospheric gases could also be extracted as by-products [7]. Some authors estimate that the coextraction and sale of these gases would reduce the overall costs of helium extraction [83]. However, the volumes of production of many of these gases would greatly exceed their current demand, thus greatly reducing their saleable price and causing supply shocks across these gas markets, including nitrogen, oxygen, argon and, to a lesser degree, neon, krypton, and xenon. Interestingly, however, appreciable quantities of carbon dioxide would also be extracted and could potentially be placed into geological storage, generating carbon credits that could be sold on the carbon market. At present, the extraction of a few gases from the air can be done profitably, including argon, neon, krypton, and xenon [57].

Several alternatives to cryogenic condensation for the separation of helium from the atmosphere exist. Krupka and Hammel [45] provided a list of differential diffusion, selective diffusion, thermal diffusion, photoexcitation, electron bombardment, gas centrifuge, Becker nozzle, vortex tube and space scoop. Many of these technologies have not been developed beyond the conceptual stage. The use of porous membranes for the extraction of helium at present appears particularly attractive as an alternative to cryogenic condensation [84,85]. Porous membranes do not require energy use for a phase change, implying a lower cost for helium production. Application of this technique for extraction of helium from the atmosphere would still require the processing of large volumes of atmospheric gases.

In addition, minimizing demand through conservation and recycling undoubtedly will be critical to the future use of helium in research. However, for many applications where small quantities are used in a large number of locations (e.g., dirigible balloons, MRI machines), capturing and recycling helium is a challenge [12]. Applications where large quantities are used in a few locations are more amenable to recycling. As the majority of situations where helium is critical relate to its cryogenic properties, the broad use of cryostats and cryocoolers to capture and re-liquefy helium will decrease its loss [86]. Different industries use a variety of processes for recycling; for example, membrane technologies are commonly used to purify helium in airships, and control mechanisms are used for recycling in the fiber optics industry [12]. Improvements in recycling technologies could potentially greatly reduce helium demand.

Several authors have called for further conservation of limited supplies of helium, including for an international body to mediate supply and demand shocks [4]. Suggesting that such a body could operate along similar lines to the International Energy Agency. However, given that the helium market is, in essence, an oligopoly, an international body may struggle to exert influence. Historically, the Bureau of Land Management’s strategic reserve was effective at controlling prices, but price controls are unlikely to be beneficial or profitable for the private sector. The challenge with this is the perceived future scientific and high-tech uses for helium still exist, as was envisaged in the 1960s. Access to helium for scientific purposes remains important. Perhaps an international body with a strategic reserve focused on keeping prices low for scientific uses of helium is a potential solution?

5.4. Helium and Net-Zero Carbon

Few publications have considered the implications of the move to net-zero carbon by 2050 on helium supply; there are a few different scenarios to reach net zero by 2050 or within the second half of this century. Even just the reduction in the price of renewable energy and increasing electrification across the world suggests that natural gas consumption will ultimately decline [87] and be replaced by renewable sources [88]. Gas production will perhaps peak during the next decade, and then production will decline. Presently, pledges to reach net-zero carbon by 2050 and concerns over air pollution have resulted in a reduction in coal power production but an increase in natural gas power production [4], which is a cleaner fuel. However, as in the majority of cases, helium is not extracted from natural gas, resulting in greater quantities of helium being lost to the atmosphere when natural gas is burned. In addition, helium cannot be extracted from all gas sources. Unconventional natural gas sources such as shale gas and biogas, which increase the energy security of countries that use them, have low helium concentrations. The concentration of helium in shale gas is low because it is lost through diffusion during the geological history of the shale [4], and biogas does not have the opportunity to collect helium from radioactive decay.

Even in a net-zero carbon environment, helium that has not already been extracted from fossil fuel-rich natural gas reservoirs could be separated for use. The remaining natural gas could be returned to the reservoir or might be burned with equivalent CO₂ being returned to the reservoir unless legislation prohibits this. If this occurs, and natural gas consumption does not decline, then significant volumes of helium from natural gas sources could continue for more than 100 years but at a dwindling rate as helium-producing sites are depleted and then closed. Estimates of the cost of helium extraction with the remaining natural gas being returned to the reservoir range from USD 9–27 per cubic meter [8], in comparison to the current industry price of just under USD 8 per cubic meter (Figure 9).

Political changes in Russia and their impact on gas supply resulted in a return to coal consumption (in Germany, for example) and increased the rate of transition to renewable energy sources across the world. In 2021, the International Energy Agency (IEA) predicted a peak in natural gas consumption in 2026–2027, followed by a decline in consumption in scenarios consistent with net zero. The changes in gas supply and demand, as well as the drive towards renewable energy, may mean that peak natural gas consumption occurs sooner. At present, predictions of the exact future of the natural gas market are highly challenging due to its dependence on global political decisions. However, it is clear that as natural gas consumption and production decline, its complement in terms of production and the supply of helium will also decline [11].

Natural gas is also used to heat residential, commercial, and industrial properties via combustion in boilers. Given that the combustion of natural gas in such local and small-scale systems makes carbon capture challenging, if not impossible, it is likely that local heating will be replaced by other technologies (heat pumps, hydrogen boilers, electric boilers, solar heaters etc.). For industrial processes where natural gas is burned (e.g., kilns), other sources of heat energy (e.g., hydrogen) are becoming available. For all of these reasons, the consumption of natural gas is likely to decline towards the middle of this century. There remain some important industrial processes that currently consume methane, a major one being the Haber process to produce ammonia for fertilizer production. There are also other natural gas feedstocks in the petrochemical industry. For these reasons, natural gas consumption, although reduced, is unlikely to reach zero by 2050.

As the price of helium rises, it is likely that an increasing proportion will be extracted from natural gas. Another future possibility is a large move towards consuming unconventional gas sources (shale gas, biogas etc.) for political reasons, which, as mentioned, contain less helium, therefore greatly reducing helium supplies. Even articles that do not consider moves to net-zero carbon emissions show helium production peaking during the 2030s primarily due to its reduced availability in natural gas reservoirs [21]. However, if natural gas usage also declines, with the increasing uptake of renewable energy sources, then the helium supply will decline much more rapidly. Past helium shortages have raised concerns in relation to its need for future technology. This has occurred throughout its history of extraction, dating back to the first government storage program in 1925. The impact of reductions in supply and increases in the price of helium is likely to be felt the worst by scientists, as it occurred during the shortages experienced between 2006 and 2013. This raises concerns over the hampering of future technological developments.

A significant alternative view is that as helium is easier and cheaper to extract from natural gas reservoirs than from the atmosphere, it is better to retain it in natural gas reservoirs below ground (Cook, 1979). On this basis, a rapid transition away from fossil fuels would preserve a greater quantity of helium in low-entropy natural gas reserves, where it could be extracted at a lower cost than atmospheric separation. This would suggest accepting a higher price in the short term but a lower and more stable long-term price in the future before going to the extra expense of atmospheric separation in the far distant future. This is similar to the scientific and economic arguments for and against the preservation of helium in the late 1970s and early 1980s, as discussed in Section 4.3 [10,14,42,43,44]. At that time, the economic argument prevailed, and the helium was not preserved for future generations. Today, perhaps the higher prices in the short term might be welcomed to preserve some more easily accessible helium for future generations.

Ultimately, the extraction of helium from the Earth’s atmosphere will be required; as discussed, the key issue with this extraction is the large volume of atmospheric gas that needs to be processed. Researchers and companies have started processing atmospheric gases for the purpose of extracting carbon dioxide [89]. Again, the co-located extraction of helium, carbon dioxide, argon, neon, and other commercial gases may potentially alleviate the costs of obtaining helium from the atmosphere in the future. However, the cost will still be higher than what is paid today, and the availability of helium for basic research will, in parallel, be lower.

6. Conclusions

Helium is important for many high-tech future applications, including nuclear fusion, quantum computing, particle accelerators, space exploration, and even some designs of solar power stations. Historically, however, the industry has been sustained by military applications, initially dirigible airships in WWI, then welding for airplanes in WWII, leading to its use in the purging of rocket engines during the space race and the Cold War. Because helium is predominantly collocated with another highly useful product, flammable natural gases (e.g., methane, ethane, and propane), throughout its history, large proportions of helium have been lost to the atmosphere when the flammable components of natural gases have been burned.

With increasing commitments to decrease carbon emissions, the burning of fossil fuels is predicted to decline (perhaps to near zero), and alongside this, the production of helium is also likely to decline. This paper has presented two perspectives on this:

• Helium will become more expensive to extract as it will no longer be extracted as a by-product;
• Helium will no longer be emitted into the atmosphere when natural gases are burned, so it will be preserved in subsurface reservoirs for future generations.

Ultimately, geological reserves of helium will be exhausted, and future generations will need to extract helium from the atmosphere at a high energy cost.

Research is ongoing, looking at several aspects of this issue:

• Where can helium be replaced by other gases (e.g., hydrogen/argon)?
• Where can the process be changed to not require helium (e.g., high-temperature superconductors)?
• How can the loss of helium be prevented (e.g., cryostats and cryocoolers)?
• How can helium be more easily extracted from the atmosphere (e.g., membrane techniques)?

The early shortages of helium primarily impacted balloons (e.g., Macy’s Thanksgiving parade). However, more recently, shortages have been increasingly felt by the scientific community, particularly where helium is used in small amounts on a regular basis. Scientific projects being carried out in discrete sections of 2–3 years matching with funding rounds, PhD student projects, and postdoctoral research fellowships makes extended shortages of helium problematic for research progress. Given the recent geopolitical issues related to helium, the decline in its availability in the USA and the dominance of Qatar, Russia, and potentially Iran in the future of helium supplies, future shortages can be anticipated.

The final sale of the assets of the US helium reserve on 30 September 2022 marked the end of US government involvement in the helium industry for the time being. However, future intervention cannot be ruled out, given the significance of this industry for future science and its surrounding geopolitical issues.

In terms of policy prescriptions, rules and regulations need to be found, introduced, and ratified to account for the oligopolistic market structure within the helium market. It is only then that the average costs can be reduced towards a more efficient level and, according to economies of scale, its production be made more economically viable. Furthermore, government agencies could anticipate and evaluate potential storage options based on an intertemporal maximization of the value of resources [57]. According to Masool and Rifaat [90], an important part of this transformation is the government allowing companies the ability to make financial profit while maintaining a strict framework to sustain environmental sustainability.