• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

ALBERT B. FALL, Secretary 

UNITED STATES 'GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

GEORGE OTIS SMITH, Director 

PROFESSIONAL PAPER 121 

HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS 

BY 

G. SHERBURNE ROGERS 

WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFIOE 

1921 
• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

•• 

•• 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

ALBERT B. FALL, Secretary 

UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

GEORGE OTIS SMITH, Director 

Professional Paper 121 

HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS 

BY 

G. SHERBURNE ROGEHS 

WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1921 
ADDITIONAL COPIES 

OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE PROCURED FROM 

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON, D. C. 

AT 

. 30 CENTS PER COPY 

'V 

• 

• 

• 

• 

•• 

-· 
• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

•· 

CONTENTS. 

Introduction ........................•............ 

Scope of the investig~tion .................... . 

Value of helium for inflating balloons ......... . 

Development of extraction processes ......... . 

Acknowledgments .......................... . 

Field investigation ....................... · ... . 

Discovery of helium ... ~ .. : ...................... . 

Nature of helium ............... .' ............... . 

Properties of helium ........................ . 

Relation of helium to the radio-elements ..... . 

Discovery of radium ...................... . 

Theory of radioactivity .................. . 

The uranium-lead radioactive series ...... . 

The thorium-lead radioactive series ...... . 

Other radioactive series ................. . 

Rate of productioL of helium by the radioelements ............................. . 

Association of helium with the rare gases ..... . 

Distribution and relations of helium-bearing natural 

gas ................................ · ............ . 

General outline ............................. . 

Mid-Continent region ........................ . 

Location ................................ . 

Geology ................................ . 

General relations ..................... . 

qarboniferous formations ............ . 

Pre-Carboniferous formations ........ . 

Stratigraphic distribution of the helium .. . 

Variation in helium content with depth .. . 

North Texas region .......................... . 

Location ............ · .................... . 

Geology ................................ . 

Distribution of the helium ............... . 

Appalachian region .......................... . 

Location ................................ . 

G·eology ............... · ................. . 

Distribution of the helium ............... . 

Rocky Mountnin and Pacific coast regions .... . 

Canada ......................... : ............ . 

Europe ............................ · .......... . 

Summary of factors influencing the distribution 

of helium ................................. . 

Chemical composition of helium-bearing natural gas. 

Constituents of natural gas ................... . 

Varieties of natural gas ....................... . 

Composition of helium-bearing gas ........... . 

Determination of helium in natural gas ....... . 

Development of methods ................. . 

Apparatus and method of procedure, by 

c. w. SeibeL ........................... . 

Page. 

5 Occurrence of helium in minerals and in other 

5 gases ... · .. · ................................... . 

5 General distribution of helium ............... . 

6 Heliui:n in minerals and rocks ................. . 

8 Helium content of minerals .............. . 

9 · Helium content of rocks .................. . 

9 Time calculations based on helium content. 

10 Helium in mine gases ....................... . 

10 Helium in the gases of mineral springs ....... . 

11 Helium in volcanic and fumarole gases ....... . 

11 Helium in the atmosphere .................... . 

li Cosmic helium ............................... . 

12 Inferred helium ............................. . 

13 The·measurement of radioactivity ......... . 

13 Distrihution of the radio-elements ........ . 

Estimates of helium production .......... . 

14 Theorie~ of the origin of helium in natural gas ..... . 

15 Review of data .............................. . 

Derivation through radioactivity .............. . 

17 Fossil helium ..................... ~ ...... . 

17 

18 

18 

18 

18 

19 

20 

23 

23 

24 

• 24 

24 

27 

28 

28 

29 

31' 

32 

33 

33 

34 

35 

35 

36 

38 

40 

40 

41 

Derivation from normally disseminated 

radio-elements ... : ..................... . 

Derivation from local deposits of the radioelements ............................. . 

Derivation from faintly radioactive elements ................................. . 

Primordial helium .......................... . 

A tniospheric helium ........................ . 

Conclusions ................................. . 

Chief sources of helium-bearing gas ............... . 

General occurrence ......................... . 

Mid-Continent region ........................ . 

Elmdale field ........................... . 

Eldorado field .......................... . 

Location ............................ . 

Geologic outline ..................... . 

Quality of the gas .................... . 

Volume and duration of the gas supply 

Augusta fi:eld ............................ . 

Location ................ · .......... . 

Geologic outline ...... , ............ . 

Quality of the gas .................. . 

Quantity of shallow gas available .... · .. 

Ql.!-antity of deep gas available ...... . 

Dexter-Otto district .................... . 

Location ............................ . 

Old Dexter field ............ ." .. · ..... . 

Area near Otto ..................... . 

Area southeast of Otto ............... . 

3 

Pago, 

42 

42 

43 

43 

45 

46 

47 

48 

51 

52 

53 

53 

53 

54 

59 

60 

60 

62 

62 

62 

63 

65 

66 

67 

68 

68 

68 

69 

69 

70 

70 

71 

71 

71 

72 

72 

73 

73 

74 

74 

75 

75 

76 

77 

77 
• I 

4 

Chief sources of helium-bearing gas-Continued. · 

Mid-Continent region-Continued. 

Sedan district ....... · ................... . 

General features ... · ................. . 

Rogers pool .................. · ...... . 

Area near Sedan ................... . 

Monett field ............... : ....... . 

Fields in Osage County, Okla ........... . 

Pearson field ....................... . 

Myers field .................... ~ ... . 

Prospective fields in western Osage 

County ................. : ......... . 

Other Mid-Continent fields ............ . 

Minor fields in Kansas .............. . 

Minor fields in 0 klahoma ............ . 

CONTENTS. 

77 

77 

77 

79 

81 

81 

81 

81 

82 

83 

Chief sources of helium-bearing gas-Continued. 

North Texas region ......................... . 

Petrolia field .......................... . 

Location and extent ............... . 

Geologic outline .... · .......... · ..... . 

Quality of the gas .................. . 

Production of the field ............. . 

Duration of the supply ............. . 

Possibility of extensions of the field .. . 

Other fields in northern Texas ........... . 

Appalachian region ........................ . 

Rocky Mountain and Pacific coast regions .... . 

Available supply of helium in the United States 

Possible sources of helium in other countries .. . 

83 Samples of natural gas tested for helium ......... . 

84 Index .......................................... . 

ILLUSTRATIONS·. 

PLATE I. Map of gas fields in southern Kansas and 

northern Oklahoma, showing distribution and quality of helium-bearing gas. 

II. Geologic map of Mid-Continent region, 

showing relations of helium-bearing 

area ............................ -·-· 

III. Map of oil and gas fields in northern 

Texas and _southern Oklahoma, show-

~ng distribution of helium-bearing gas 

~nd relation.of fields to areas of uplift .. 

iV. Apparatus used in quantitative determin.ation o~ heJ;.um ...... ~ .............. . 

FIGURE l. Index map showing general distribution 

. . of natural.gas rich in helium ......... . 

2. Generalized section of formations in 

eastern Kansas ..................... . 

3. Map of portion of eastern Kansas showing depth and relations of the granite 

ridge ............................... . 

. . 4. Generalized columnar section of formations in north-central Texas ......... . 

5. Map showing the geologic relations of 

. the Ohio area of helium-bearing gas .. 

6. Columnar section of rocks exposed and 

encountered in drilling in south-central Ohio ........................... . 

7. Diagram showing relation of helium to 

nitrogen in 50 samples of natural gas .. 

Page. 

18 

20 

24 

42 

17 

19 

22 

25 

29 

30 

40 

FIGURE 8. Sketch map of Eldorado field, Kans., 

showing gas wells, location of samples, 

and helium content of gas ........... . 

9. Curve showing decline of average rock 

pressure of a typical group of wells in 

the Eldorado field, Kans .......... · .. 

10. Sketch map of Augusta field, Kans., 

showing gas wells, location of samples, 

helium content of gas, and areas in 

which the shallow gas rich in helium 

. occurs ............................ . 

11. Sketch map of Dexter-Otto area, Cowley 

County, Kans., showing location of 

wells sampled andhelium content of 

gas ............................... . 

12. Detailed map of the town of Dexter, 

Kans., showing location of wells sampled and helium content of gas ..... 

13. Map of Sedan district, Kans., showing 

location of wells sampled and helium 

content of gas ..................... . 

14. Diagram showing p~oduction of natural 

gas in Kansas and 0 klahoma ......... . 

15. Map of Petrolia field, Tex., showing location of wells sampled and helium 

content of'the gas .................. . 

16. Curve showing average closed pressure 

and average open flow of gas wells of 

Lone Star Gas Co. in the Petrolia 

field, Tex .......................... . 

Page. 

85 

85 

85 

86 

86 

87 

87 

89 

89 

90 

91 

91 

92 

95 

111 

Page. 

70 

72 

73 

75 

76 

78 

83 

85 

88 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

•• 
• 

• 

• 

• 

... 

HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAs.· 

By G. ·SHERBURNE RoGERs . 

INTRODUCTION. 

SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION. 

The gas helium, which was discovered on the 

earth by Sir William Ramsay in 1895 and which 

was at first regarded as one of the rare elements, 

was found in 1905 by H. P. Cady and D. F. :McFarland to occm· in sn1all proportion in natural 

gas. fron1 many localities in Kansas. The 

announcement of this discovery excited interest 

in scientific circles, but as no practical use for 

helium was known it had no industrial value, 

and efforts were not made to extract it ex:cept 

in very small quantities for experimental use. 

During the first year of the World War, howe,7er, a British scientist conceived the idea of 

using helimn instead of hydrogen for inflating 

banoons, and in 1915 a vigorous but unsuccessful search for the gas in England was b~gun 

under the direction of Sir William Ramsay. 

This search was later extended to Canada but 

without attaining satisfactory results. On the 

entrance of the United States into the war the 

projec-t was revived, and this Government 

undertook an energetic campaign for the production of helium in large quantities. 

The value of heliun1 for inflating balloons 

was brought to the attention of the Army and 

Navy by· the Bureau of Mines, and that 

bureau was commissioned to investigate the 

practicability of extracting the gas in large 

quantities and at a reasonable cost. When 

the technologic feasibility of the project was 

assured, the Geological Survey was called upon 

to investigate the helium resources of the 

country, in order to locate the richest supplies 

of the gas and to forn1 estin1ates of the quantity .available. This paper is based on. the results of that investigation and describes the. 

distribution and geologic relations of heliumbearing nn.tural gas, 1na:king only brief mention 

of the technologic problems involved in the 

extraction and purification of the helimn. 

As the Survey's investigation was made 

strictly for military purposes it was necessarily 

directed toward locating an adequate supply 

of helium-bearing gas as speedily as· possible, 

and .practicany no attention was given to the 

broader scientific problems involved in the· 

origin or ultimate source of the helium. Considerable research will evidently be necessary 

before this problem can· be successfully attacked, and in view of the probable development of commercial aircraft during the coming 

decade, and the probability' that· the cost of 

extracting helium from natural gas will be. 

reduced sufficiently to permit its use in commercial balloons, it has been deemed desirable to 

present immediately a brief description of the 

chief sources of heliu1n in the United States . 

At the same time the ''rriter has endeavored to 

describe the broader geologic relations of the 

helium-bearing gas, to discuss various theories 

of its origin, and to review the reported occurrenQes of helium in minerals and in other gases, 

in the hope that such a presentation of the 

problem will b~ of value to others who may 

later attempt to solve it. · 

VALUE OF HELIUM FQR ·INFLATING BALLOONS. 

The value of helium for inflating balloons, 

especially airships of the Zeppelin type, lies 

in its 'lightness and its incombustibility. 

I-Iydrogen, the gas commonly used for inflating 

balloons,. is the lightest substapce known, but 

mixed with air it is explosively con1bustible. 

For this reason a balloon fllled with hydrogen r 

is very liable to be set aflre, either by atmospheric electricity, by sparks from its power 

plant, ·or by any one of numerous accidents 

which may occur even when it is in its hangar. 

The flre hazard is of course greatly increased 

in balloons used for military purposes, a single 

incendiary bullet being ·usually sufficient to 

destroy a great airship; and this weakness, 

inherent in. all hydrogen-filled balloo;ns, was 

5 
6 HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 

not only a potent factor in the practical reasonable cost is obviously of prnne 1mfailure of the German Zeppelin program but portance. The investigation of extraction 

has always been a serious drawback to the processes was carried on by the Bureau of 

development of lighter-than-air craft. On Mines and has been described elsewhere.2 Only 

the other hand, Assistant Secretary of the a brief account will be given here. 

Navy Roosevelt is authority for the state- It was recognized at the outset that the 

ment, "With the fire risk eliminated the only practicable means of separating helium 

rigid airship or Zeppelin will hence be one of from the methane, ethane, nitrogen, etc., 

the most powerful weapons known. " 1 with which it is found, lay in taking advantage 

Helium weighs 0.0112 pound per cubic foot of the differ~nce in boiling points of these 

and is thus twice as heavy as hydrogen, which elements-in other words, by employing a 

weighs only 0.0056 ·pound per cubic foot. In system of gas liquefaction and distillation 

comparison with air, however, both· gases are such as is used to extract. oxygen from the air. 

so light that this difference is of small practical Of the common consti~uents of natural gas, 

importance, and the lifting power or buoyancy butane, at atmospheric pressure, boils (that is,-

of helium is 93 per cent of that of hydrogen. passes from the liquid to the gaseous state) at 

The slightly greater weight of the helium is, 1° C., propane at -45° C., ethane at -93° C., 

moreover, far more than offset by its chemical methane at -165° C.,. and nitrogen at -195° 

inertness, for as helium does not combine C., ·whereas the boiling point of helium is 

with oxygen it can not explode or burn. about -268° C. Hence by cooling the natural . 

Furthermore, its nate-of diffusion is only about gas to about -200° C., it is possible under 

half that of hydrogen, and consequently it proper mechanical conditions to liquefy all the 

passes through ·the balloon fabric ·and wastes constituents except helium and thus obtain 

much mor~ slowly. The chief advantage of the helium as the gaseous residue. The rehelium, however," is obviously its incombusti- maining constituents, after being returned to 

bility, for fire is one of the greatest of the their normal gaseous state, may be used as 

hazards to which ordinary balloons are subject. ordinary natural gas. 

Moreover, the use of a noninflammable gas At the time the investigation started there 

permits modifications in the design of air- were two well-established companies conships which make for greater speed and trolling respectively the Linde and Claude 

cruising radius, as well as for greater military "systems of gas liquefaction, and these comefficiency. In view of these advantages; it panies were invited to cooperate in an effort 

is apparent that the use of helium for inflating to modify their apparatus-designed primarily 

airships, both military and commercial, will for tr~ating air-so as to treat the helium-bearbe limited solely by· tlfe. supply of helium ing gas. Two plants, each designed to produce 

available and the expense at which it can be· at atmospheric pressure about 7,000 cubic feet 

produced. · of helium a day, were erected at Fort Worth, 

The painstaking and little-noticed research Tex., in the spring of 1918, to experiment on 

which led to Prof. Cady's discovery o_f heliun1 the gas of the Petrolia field, which ~arries 0.90 

in natural gas, and the conception of another per cent of helium. Within six weeks after 

scientist ten years later that balloons might starting operations the Linde plant was probe made far saf~r and more efficient if inflated clueing a small volume of gas containing 50 

with helium, furmsh ari inspiring example of per c~nt of heli~m, and about .four m.onths 

the ·practical 'Value which purely scientific later 1t ha.d attained an average prod~ctwn of 

achieve~ne·nts may assume in course of time. 5,000 cubic feet a day of gas carrymg more 

than 70 per cent of helium, which was further 

DEVELOPMENT OF EXTRACTION PROCESSES. purified by a. second process to a helium conAs the richest. natural gas known contains 

only 11-bout 2 per cent of helium and . the 

richest gas occurring in large quantity carries 

only 1 per cent, the development of a process 

for extracting and purifying the heliu~1 at a 

t Official Bull. U. 8., Mar. 18, 1919, p. 9. 

tent of 93 . per cent. The Claude plant also 

gradually increased the purity and the volume 

of its product, and although up to February 1, 

1919, its performance was rna terially behind 

2 Cottrell, F. G., Commercial production of helium: Chern. and Met. 

Eng., vol. 20, p. 104, February, 1919. Stewart, Andrew, Production of 

helium for use in airships: Bur. Mines Bull. 178C (excerpt), 1919. 

fl 

•• 

• 

• 

•• 

• 
• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

•• 

INTRODUCTION. 7 

that of the Linde plant, further modifications 

in the apparatus were then being made which 

were expected to increase its efficiency greatly. 

At the time the armistice was signed, November 11, 1918, the first shipment from these 

plants, of 147,000 cubic feet of 93 per· cent 

helium, 01· about enough to fill four ordinary 

. kite balloons, was on the dock awaiting transportation to Europe. 

The Linde and Claude processes differ considerably in principle. By the Linde process 

the gas is compressed to about 2,000 pounds 

to the square inch and cooled successively by 

water, liquefied carbon dioxide, and the 

liquefied gases obtained later as a by-product 

of the main operation. It is then allowed to 

e..-xpand through a regulating throttle and 

finally to escape from the apparatus at ordinary 

pressure. The very low temperature necessary to liquefy nitrogen is attained through the 

Joule-Thomson effect. Gas at a pressure of 

about 2,000 pounds is allowed to escape 

through a porous plug or valve to a lower 

pressure, whereby it is cooled. The gas thus 

cooled is used hi turn to cool the compressed 

gas. On the frequent repetition of this procedure the temperature of the compressed gas 

ultimately falls below its boiling point. · The 

apparatus has the merit of simplicity and 

freedom from moving parts, an important 

consideration under the low temperatures 

necessary; but the very high pressure under 

which the incoming gas must be pumped 

necessitates the installation of powerful coinpressors, which greatly increase the cost and 

operating expense of the plant as a whole. 

The Claude process depends on an entirely 

different principle, a portion of the ·compressed and cooled gas being passed through 

an expansion engine and made to do work 

instead of merely expanding through a fi-xed 

throttle. In this way, with an initial pressure 

fl,t the engine's intake of only about 400 pounds 

to the square inch and a very much lower 

pressure at its exhaust, a su:fficiently low temperature is reached not only to fractionate by 

liquefaction the gas that has passed through the 

engine but also to fractionate by heat interchn,nge another portion of compressed gas in 

the npparatus. The Claude process is thus 

more efficient thermodynamically than the 

Linde process and eliminates some of the compressors whose cost and power consumption 

contribute largely to the expense of t;he Linde 

plant. Another consideration is the fact that 

the natural gas in some fields is under a rock 

pressure of 400 or even 800 pounds to the 

square inch, so that in the Claude process it 

can be used without further compression, the 

expense of compressors being thus avoided. 

About the time the helium investigation was 

undertaken a third process, known as the 

Jeffries-Norton process, was being perfected 

by its inventors. This process was regarded 

by Cottrell as theoretically. more efficien.t than 

either of the older ones and capable of greatly 

reducing the expense of production. After an 

investigation of its merits by the National 

Research Council, the· erection of a plant at 

Petrolia was begun, but the installation was 

not completed until shortly before the armistice was signed. Since that time the plant has 

been undergoing testing and adjustment, but 

on April 3, 1919, a test run yielded a product 

containing 20 per cent helium aJ?-d it was 

expected that quantity production could soon 

be begun and that the cost would be far below 

that of either the Linde or the Claude process. 

The J effries-N orton process is somewhat 

similar to the Claude but differs in using three 

expansion engines instead of one .. Each engine 

works through a different temperature range, 

acting on the gases after their liquefaction and 

distillation and permitting treatment of all the 

gas· in this manner. The process is therefore 

theoretically more efficient than the Claude 

process and should attain the desired temperatures with an even lower initial pressure. 

As judged by actual performance up to 

April 1, 1919, the Linde process, the most 

elaborate and expensive of the three, has 

given the best results, though further modification of the Claude process may render its 

operation on natural gas equally satisfactory. 

The J e:ffries-N orton plant was just beginning to 

operate on a commercial basis, but· it is believed that in ~iew of the theoretical superiority of the process it will prove capable of 

producing helium far more cheaply than 'the 

older processes. At the time the investigation was begun it was thought that helium 

could not be produced fron1 the Petrolia gas 

by the Linde or Claude processes for less than 

$100 per thousand cubic feet, but with the erection of large plants it is now evident that. tliis 

figure can be reduced to $60 or $80 per thousand 
8_ HELIUM-:BEARING NATURAL GAS. 

cubic feet, and if· the Jeffries-Norton process work was performed under the· 'direction of 

fulfills expect'ations the cpst will be still lower. Prof. H. P. Cady, of the University of Kansas, 

As the cost of extraction depends on the the methods followed being essentially those 

volume of natural gas handled in the plant used by Cady and McFarland in their earlier 

rather than on the volume of, product, it is research. Most of the samples discussed in 

evident that the cost of tr~ating a lower-grade this report, including all those collected by 

gas .is much greater than that of handling a Survey members, were examined by Mr. C. W. 

gas like that of the Petrolia field, which Seibel, chemist at the Fort Worth experiment 

carries 0.9 ·per cent of helium. Helium has plant and a former pupil of Prof. Cady, and the 

been produced in the Fort Worth plants from writer desires to record his appreciation of the 

mi~tures of the Petrolia gas with that from prompt and painstaking manner in which Mr. 

other fields, the mi.~ture carrying only -0.4 to Seibel performed this work. Mr. Seibel has also 

0.5 per cent of helium, but figures of cost are furnished an account of the analytical methods 

not available. Experiments have been made employed, which is given on pages 41-42. 

in other countries on gas carrying 0.25 to 0.3 As helium occurs characteristically in gases·. 

per cent of helium, but· the cost of extraction high in nitrogen, an ordinary analysis of a gas 

by the ordinary methods proved prohibitive. may furnish a clue as to Its probable helium 

If the Jeffries-Norton process. finally proves content. The writer's thanks are due to Prof. 

successful, it should be possible to treat such H: C. Allen, of the University of Kansas, who 

gases, but by the older method the minimum generously contributed numerous analyses of 

workable helium content is probably some- the gases of Kansas and northern Oklahoma. 

where near 0.5 per cent. The field work on which·this report is based 

was done between June 5 and November 10, 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. 1918. The writer was efficiently assisted in 

Although the investigation which the writer his studies in the Mid-Cohtin.ent and Texas 

conducted for the Geological Survey dealt fields by P~ V. Roundy, C. E. Dobbin, R. G. 

wholly with the distribution and geologic Argabrite, · and C. R. Bickel. George B. 

relations of the helium-bearing natural gas, it Richardson investigated the helium resources 

touched at several points the work of the of the Vinton County district, Ohio, and a brief 

Bureau of Mines investigators, whose cordial summary of his report is incorporated in this 

aid and cooperation the writer desires grate- paper. C. E. Van Orstrand's valuable aid in 

fully to acknowledge. Special mention should making some of the computations here given 

be made of the cooperation and advice of is gratef~lly acknowledged. The whole investiJ. 0. Lewis, then superintendent of the Bureau gation was conducted under the general direcof :Mines Experiment Station· at Bartlesville, tion of David White, who, by suggestion and 

Okla., who furnish~d every facility at his advice, contributed materially to its success. 

command for the advancement of the work. Valuable aid was rendered by many oil and 

The writer's thanks are also due to R. B. gas operators and by the geologists and other 

Moore, .who was in charge of the gas experi- officials of the large! operating companies, 

ment plants at Fort Worth and under whose many of whom patriotically sacrificed time and 

general direction much of the analytical work money to assist in the work. Special mention 

was done; to A. W. Ambrose and E. W. should be made of the contribution of C. A. 

W agy, who collected about 70 samples of gas Fisher, consulting geologist, of Denver, Colo., 

in· the Northwestern States and California; and who undertook . the collection of a complete 

to C. F. Ward, who, under the direction of suite of samples from all the Wyoming fields. 

P, M. Biddeson, collected a number of samples Acknowledgments are also due to Arthur Denin different parts of the country. man, of Sedan, Kans.; to William Kennedy 

An important part of the data on which this and others, of the Lone Star Gas Co., Fort 

report is based consists of the chemical in- Worth, Tex.; to Everett Carpenter, J. B. 

formation-chiefly determinations of the he- _McCune, A. W. McCoy, G. B. McKinley, and 

lium content of natural gas samples-funiished · others, of the Empire Gas.& Fuel Co., Bartlesby the Bureau of Mines. When the helium ville, Okla.; to C. R. Burke, of the Oklahoma 

investigation was first started the analytical Natural Gas Co., Tulsa, Okla.; and to a great 

• 

·•· 

• 

•• 

•• 

• 

• 
• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

·• 

• 

• 

DISCOVERY OF HELIUM. g· 

many othei'S. The Empire Gas & Fuel Co., 

the Carter Oil Co., the Roxana Petroleum Co . 

the 'fexas Co., the Lone Star Gas Co. and th~ DeYonian Oil Co. furnished consider~ble geologic infonnation, including structural maps of 

n1any areas. 

FIELD INVESTIGATION . 

The .fteld work on which the investicration of 

heliun1 in natural gas was based ~onsisted chiefly of collecting samples of gas for analysis 

nnd in gnthering datn regarding the depth 

geologic position, rock pressure, and volume of 

the gas sampled. If the sample proved rich 

enough in helium to be of value investigations 

of the quantity of gas nvnilable and of the 

probnble duration of the supply were made. 

'fbis work involved cnreful examination of the 

structurnl geology in one or two areas, though 

a number of the helium-rich districts had been 

previously examined by Survey geologists in 

connection with other investigations, and data 

0~1 many o~hm'S were generously furnished by 

01l compa1ues. · 

Most of the gas samples were collected under 

pressure in steel containei'S which consisted of 

a~out 10 ~ches .of 1i-inch seamless tubing 

with a i-mch nipple welded in each end. 

Special needle valves were set in the nipples 

nnd protected by short extra lencrths of tubincr b b 

welded on each end of the container so as to 

fonn a single ~ube about 18 inches lo~g, strong 

m~ough to Withstand transportation by mail 

Without extra wrapping. The containers were 

coupled directly to the well with both needle 

volves open, and the gas was allowed to blow 

t~roug~ for a n1inu te or so in order to expel the 

mr. 'Ihe samples were taken at full rock pressure, provided this did not exceed 100 to 200 

pounds to the square inch, though at a pressure 

of only 50 pounds sufficient gas enters the 

tubes to afford a satisfactory determination of 

the helium content. A few low-pressure samples were collected in half-gallon' glass bottles 

fitted with porcelain and rubber pressure stop~ pers, the gas being allowed to blow into the 

inverted bottle for a period of 5 to 10 minutes. 

DISCOVERY OF HELIUM. 

Peculiar interest attaches to the element 

helium by reason of the fact that it was 

discovered in the sun almost 30 years 

before it was found on the earth. In 1868 

an eclipse of the sun was visible in India 

and· the spectroscope was then used fo; 

the first time to study the chromosphere, 

the colored atmos:rhere which envelops the 

sun. Lockyer 3 recognized many of the common terrestrial elements in the solar chromosphere, but he a1so called attention to a 

brilliant yellow line in the spectru:m which, 

though apparently associated with the D lines 

of sodium, did not exactly correspond with 

them. Lockyer, Frankland, and Janssen investigated this line further and, finding that it 

could not be ascribed to any known element 

distinguished the line as D3 and suggested that 

the element represented by the line be called 

helium, a name derived from the Greek word 

for the sun. 

In 1888 W. F. Hillebrand,4 of the United 

States Geological Survey, in the course of an 

analytical study of uraninite found that this . ' llll:neral when boiled with dilute sulphuric acid 

g~ve off considerable quantities of an inert gas. 

l~illebrand proved that this gas was in part 

nitrogen, and as no other inert gases were 

known at that time he concluded that it was 

a~l nitroge~. In 1892 Rayleigh and Ramsays 

discovered In th~ atmosphere a new inert gaseous element which they named argon, and in 

1895 Ramsay, 6 noting I-Iillebrand's results and 

b~lievmg th~t the gas evolved by uraninite 

nught contam argon, undertook to examine it 

ftirther. Ramsay, who :used the mineral cleveite, a. variety of uraninite, extracted the gas 

by I-Iillebrand'~ method and after removing 

oxygen ·and nitrogen examined the residue 

sp~ctroscopicaJ!y and at once r~cognized the 

bpght yellow hne D3, which Lockyer Janssen 

and Frankland had long before established a~ 

3 Lockyer, J. N ., Spectroscopic observations of the sun: Philos. Trans. 

vol. 159, p. 428, 1869. ' 

f Hillebrand, \V. F., On the occurrence of nitrogen in uranfnito and' 

on the composition of uraninite in general': U. S. Geol. Survey Bull. 78, 

p. 43, 1891. 

li Rayleigh, Lord, and Ramsay, 'Villiam, Argon, a new constituent 

of the atmosphere (abstract): Roy. Soc. London Prvn vol 57 p 265 1892. v., . ' . ' 

The samples· were forwarded immediately to 

the Bureau of :Mines laboratory at Fort Worth, 

Tex., and were analyzed promptly. A desc. ri})tion of the analytical methods employed I·s a ~o.msay, Willia~, Discovery of helium: Chern. News, vol. 71, p. 151, 1895, On a ~as showmg the spectrum of helium, tho reputed cause of Ds, 

g1ven on pages 41-42. ono or tl~e hnes of the coronal spectrum: Roy. Soc. London Proc., vol. 

58, pp. 6o, 81, 1895. 
10 HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 

the distinctive line of their solar element, helium. Ramsay 7 at once · investigated pther 

uranium-bearing minerals an-d found that 

fergusonite, broggerite, yttrotantalite, pitchblend~, and polycrase, as well as certain rareearth minerals, such as monazite, orangeite, 

and xenotime·, yield helium in varying quanti~ies. Kayser, 8 a few months later, announced 

the presence of helium ·in the atmosphere and 

also in the gas emitted from the mineral springs 

of Wildbad, in the Black Forest. Subsequent 

work by various investigators has shown that 

helium is a minor constituent of many minerals 

and rocks and that it occurs in small· proportions in ·son1e mine gases and in the gases of 

many mineral springs and fumaroles. (See 

pp. 43-52.) . 

Although helium was thus found, very 

shortly after its discovery, to be widely distributed through the earth's crust, it was supposed to occur only in minute quantities and 

was regarded as one of the rare elements. It 

remained for Cady and McFarland to discover 

the great supplies of helium which are contained in natural gas. In ~ 903 a natural gas 

was found at a depth of about 400 feet at Dexter, Kans., which was so low in heat value that 

it was at first thought to be incombustible. A 

sample of this gas was submitted to. the Uni-

, versity of Kansas for analysis and was found. 

to contain about 15. per cent of methane and 

ethane arid about 85 per cent of an inert gas,· 

apparently nitrogen.9 Further examination of 

this inert residue by Cady and McFarland 

proved it to contain 1.84 per cent of helium, 

with minute proportions of neon and argon. 10 

An examination of natural· gases from numerous localities in Kansas and elsewhere was then 

undertaken, and all but one of the samples examined were found to contain· at least_ a trace 

of helium, though by far the largest proportions were found in gases of southern Kansas. 

Cady and McFarland made their investigation chiefly from the chemist's point of view, 

and the quantitative aspect of their disc9very 

1 Ramsay, William, Collie, J. N., and Travers, Morris, Helium, acon-

'Dtituent of certain minerals: Chern. Soc. Jour., vol. 67, p. 684, 1895. 

s Kayser, H., Note on helium and argon: Chern. News, vol. 72, p. 89, 

1895. 

9 Haworth, Erasmus, and McFarland, D. F., The Dexter, Kans., 

nitrogen gas well: Science, new ser., vol. 21, p. 191, 1904. 

10 Cady, H. P., and McFarland, D. F., The occurrence of helium in 

natural gas and the composition of natural gas: Am. Chern. Soc. Jour., 

vol. 29, p. 1524, 1907; The composition of natural gas, with special study 

of the constituents of Kansas gases: Kansas Univ. Geol. Survey, vol. 

9, pp. 228-302, 1908. 

was not generally realized. The fact that the 

helium-bearing natural gas is produced at the 

rate of millions of cubic feet a day and that a 

helium content of only 1 per cent may thus 

mean the production of very large volumes of 

helium was passed unnoticed by foreign investigators, who, as late as-1912, refer~ed to springs 

producing 1,200 cubic feet of helium ~year as 

the most prolific somces of the element known.U 

Apparently it. remained for the stimulus of the 

war emergency to bring recognition of the facts 

that enormous volumes of this supposedly rare 

element are being produced and wasted daily 

in the United _States, and that if means could 

be found to extract the helium it would furnish 

an ideal gas for inflating balloons. 

NATURE OF HELIUM. 

PROPERTIES OF HELIUM. 

Helium is a" colorless and odorless gas, having 

an atomic and molecular weight of 4. Its two 

most distinctive properties are lightness and 

chemical inertness. -Helium is the second 

lightest substance known; its density, compared with air as unity, is 0.1368, whereas that 

of hydrogen is 0.0696. Helium weighs 0.0112 

pound per cubic foot and hydrogen 0.0056 

pound, but the buoyancy of helium in air is 

about 93 per cent that of hydrogen. The boiling point of helium is so low that for many 

years all attempts to liquefy it failed, but in 

1908 Onnes 12 succeeded in liquefying helium at 

4.5° above absolute z~ro (about -268.5° C.) 

and found its density in the liquid form to be 

0.122. 

Helium is an inert gas, showing no tendency 

to combine with other elements under any temperatures and pressures that can be produced 

in the laboratory. It is only slightly soluble in 

water, 100 volumes of water at 20° C. dissolving 

1.4 volumes of helium, and it is insoluble in absolute alcohol and benzene. After. helium has 

been.driven out of a mineral like uraninite it is 

not_ easily re~bsorbed, though, according to 

Piutti/3 certain fused solids and n1inerals do 

absorb helium at moderate temperatures. 

Moreover, Jaquerod and Perro~ 14 have ob- _ 

n Moureu, Charles, and Lepape, A., Sur. quelques melanges gazeux 

naturals particulierement riches en helium; Gisement.;; d'helium: 

Compt. Rend., vol. 155, p. 197, 1912. · 

12 Onnes, H. K., L'helium liquide: Compt. Rend., vol. 147, p. 421, 

1908. 

1a Piutti, Arnaldo, Absorption of helium by rocks and minerals [abo 

stract]: Chern. Soc. Jour., vol. 100, pt. 2, p. 88, 1911. . 

u Jaquerod, A., and Perrot, F. L., Sur l'emploi de !'helium comme 

substance thermometrique et sur sa diffusion 1\ travers Ia silica: Com pt. 

Rend., vol. 139 ,p. 789, 1904. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 
• 

• 

·, 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

NATURE OF HELIUM. 11 

served that helium diffuses through quartz, the indicating that some unknown element more 

diffusion becoming noticeable at 220° C. and active than uranium itself exists in the mineral. 

rapid at 1,100° C. These observations are im- On carefully separating the metals that occ~ 

portant geologically, as will be shown below in this complex mineral she found that several 

(p. 47). . groups are active but that the most active of 

1-Ielimn is readily identified by the spectro- all is the alkaline-earth group. Upon fuTther 

scope, its spectrum being very brilliant. The investigation of this group she discovered as 

characteri~tic and exceptionally brilliant yel- the cause of its activity the new element radium . 

low line, D3 , by which heliu1n was originally dis- . Subsequent work by :Madame Curie and other 

covered in the sun, is not masked by any other investigators, prominent among whom were 

eletnent. '!"his line has a wave length of 587.6 Rutherford, Ramsay, and Soddy, have brought 

millionths of a millimeter (5,876 Angstrom to light the existence of not only one but almost 

units) .

15 In addition helium shows two red 30 new unstable bodies, the study of whose 

lines, one of which is brilliant, and a green, a transformations has opened an entirely new 

blue, and a violet line, as well as several fainter field in physics and chemistry. A historical 

lines. review of these discoveries would be 'out of 

RELATION OF HELIUM TO THE RADIO-ELEMENTS. 

DISCOVERY OF RADIUM. 

Although in a strictly chemical sense helium 

is an inert element, it is genetically involved in 

the process of radioactivity, and in order to 

consider intelligently the origin and distribution of heliun1 it is necessary to understand 

clearly its relation with the so-called radioelenlents.10 

~rho property of radioactivity was discovered 

in 1896 by Becquerel, in the course of his experiments on fluorescence. IIe found, partly by 

accident, that salts of uranium would, without 

prm-rious · exposill·e to the sunlight, affect a 

photographic plate. Madame Curie, becoming 

interested in his results, tested other elements 

and. found that both Ul'anium and thorium 

exhibit the same property. By experimenting 

with various compounds she found, moreover, 

that a given weight of m·anium or thorium 

possesses the same degree of activity, regardless of whether it is combined as sulphate, 

chloride, or bromide-in other words, that 

radioactivity is an atomic property. In exper:inlenting with the minerals in which 

m·u.nimn and thorium ocmu·, however, she found 

that pitchblende, carrying a given weight of 

m·anium, is several times as radioactive as an 

equivalent quantity of a pure lrranium salt, 

IG Crookcs, William, ':rho spectnun of tho gas from cleveitc: Chern. 

News, vol. 71, p. 151, 1895; 1'he spectrum or helium: Idem, vol. 72, p. 

87, 1895. 

16 )?or summm·Ics of our knowledge of radium and the property ofradioncth•ity, soc Rutherford, E., ·Radioactive transformations, .New York, 

1900; ~adiouctivo substances and their radiations, Cambridge, 1913; 

Soddy, l~roderlck, Tho interpretation of radium, New York, 1912. A 

recent concise summary is givou by R. B. Moore (Radium: Am. Inst. 

Min. Eng. 13ull. 140, p. 1165, August, 1918). 

place here, but a brief accourit of th~ radioactive processes into which ·these ephemeral 

substances enter is given in the following 

paragraphs. 

THEORY OF RADIOACTIVITY. 

One of the first observations made on radium 

showed that it is continuously losing energy at 

a remarkable rate, having, in fact, the power of 

raising the temperature of 133 times its own 

weight of water by 1° C. an hour. ~1oreover, 

in addition to the properties of fluorescence 

and of affecting the photographic plate, it was 

found that radium has the faculty of producing 

charged carriers of electricity, or ions, in the 

gases SU1Tounding it, in this manner rendering 

the gases conductors of electricity. It was 

soon recognized that all these effects are due to 

actual radiations or emanations given off by 

radium-in other words, that the radium atom 

is actually undergoing spontaneous disintegration into other atoms. 

Studies of the emanation given off by radium 

indicated it to be a heavy gas, radioactive 

in character but totally different in its other 

properties from the parent radium; and it was 

found, moreover, that the activity of the emanation decr~ases at a constant rate and always 

reaches half of its original value in 3.8 days. 

Further study led to the discovery that the 

decrease in activity of the emanation is due to 

its own disintegration, and that it forms a solid 

body which is also radioactive and which in 

tm·n is rapidly transformed. into another active 

product. These facts led Rutherford and 

Soddy'in 1902 to enunciate their disintegration 

theory-" that the atoms of radioactive bodies 
12 HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS.· 

are unstable and that a certain fLxed proportion· in the course of the disintegration, and uranium 

of them . become unstable every second and may provisionally be considered the compound 

br.eak up ~ith explosive violence, accompanied PbHe8 • ·(Seep. 53.) 

in general by the expulsion of particles." Careful investigations by Rutherford and 

THE URANIUM-LEAD RADIOACTIVE SERIES. 

In the light of the disintegration theory it 

became possible to explain the constant association of uranium, radium, helium, and lead 

in pitchblende and other minerals. Uranium 

has an atomic weight of 238, which is higher 

than that of any other element; radium has an 

atomic weight of 226, radium emanation of 222, 

lead of 207, and helium of 4. It was suggested 

by Rutherford and Soddy that the transformation of radium into radium emanation might be 

accompanied by the expulsion of helium atoms, 

causing the decrease in atomic weight from 226 

to 222, and a year later Ramsay and Soddy 

actual~y showed that radium salts give off 

helium, thus proving for the first time the 

derivation of one element from anotherY 

By the same line of reasoning it was supposed that uranium might be the parent of 

radium, and, as the difference in their atomic 

weights is 12, that radium must represent the 

third step in the disintegration of uranium, 

each stage of which must result in the formation of one helium atom. Subsequent investiO'ations by Boltwood and others established ,:, . 

the existence of these intermediate products 

and thus definitely proved the derivation of 

radium from uranium. At the other end of 

the series several intermediate products having 

~tomic weights·lower than.that of radium were 

found, and the hypothesis was advanced that the 

ultimate disintegration product is lead. The 

objection to this· hypothesis was the fact that 

the atomic weiO'ht of ordinary lead is 207, 0 . . 

\vhereas the expulsion of 5 helium atoms from 

radium should result in 226- (5 X 4) = 206. This 

objection has recently been removed by the discovery of an isotopic form of lead having an 

atomic weight of 206/8 and all the main steps 

in the disintegration of uranium through 

radium and various other products to lead are 

now well established. As the difference in 

atorr;tic weight between uranium (238) and 

lead (206) is 32, 8 helium atoms are given off 

11 Ramsay, William, and Soddy, Frederick, E:\.-periments in radioactivity, and the production of helium from radium: _Roy. Soc: London 

Proc., vol. 72, p. 204, 1903. . . 

. 1s Richards, T. W., The problem ofradioactivelead: Science,newser., 

vol. 49, p. 1, 1919; 

others of the nature of the rays emitted by the 

radioactive substances in the course of their 

disintegration have revealed the fact ·that the 

rays are of. three kinds. The alpha rays a.re 

the most important_, being in fact the helium 

atoms themselves. They are expelled at· a 

velocity of about 20,000 miles a second and are 

the chief cause of the heating effects of radioactivity. The beta particles are electrons having a much smaller mass than· the alpha particles but a grea.ter velocity a:J?.d penetrating 

power. The gamma rays are not material in 

character but are simply vibrations in the 

ether. Some of the radio-ele:p1ents in their 

transformation emit all three types of rays, and 

others give off only one; but it is only when tl?-e 

alpha rays are given off that a decrease in 

atomic weight: with the_ formation of helium, 

ta.kes place. 

Each radioactive substance breaks down at a 

definite and characteristic rate, the disinte~ 

gration of uranium, for example, being extremely slow,. whereas that of radium emanation is rapid. The number of atoms disintegrating each second, however, is invariably proportional to the total number present, so that 

as the quantity of the decaying substance decreases the rate of formation of the new body 

.diminishes correspondingly. For example, half 

a given quantity of radium disintegrates in 

1,690 years, half of the remainder in 1,690 years 

more, and so on; hence, at the end of 16,900 

years only about 0.1 per cent of the original 

mass will be left. In order to avoid the consideration of infinitesimal quantities, it is convenient to express the rate of decay in terms of 

the "half-life period"-the period in which 

half of a given quantity disintegrates. The 

following table shows the order and rate of 

disintegration of the uranium-lead series: 

The 'lL?:anium-lead radioactive series. 

Uranium 1 .... Uranium X1 •••• · 

Uranium X2 •••• 

Uranium 2 _ ••• 

Ionium ... · ..... 

Atomic 

weight. 

238 

234 

234 

234 

230 

Rays. 

Alpha_ ........ . Beta .... ~ ... . Beta and gam- ma. Alpha ......... . ..... do ........ . 

Half-life period. 

5.3X109 years. 

24 days. 

1.15 min. 

2X106 years. 

105 years? 

.. 

•• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 
• 

• 

• 

•• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

NATURE: OF HELIUM. 13 

'J'he ttranittnt-lead 1·adioactive series-Continued. 

Atomic Rays. Half-life period. weignt. 

Hadium ........ 226 Al~ha and slow 1,690 years. 

eta. .. Radium em a- nation. 

222 Alpha .......... 3."8 days. 

Hadium A ..... 218 ..... do ........ 3.0 min . Hadi um B ..... 214 Beta and gam- 27 min. ma. Hadimn C ...... 214 Alpha, beta, and 19.5 min. 

Hadium D ..... 210 

gamma. 

Beta and gam- 16.5 years. ma. Hadium E ..... 210 Beta ........... 5.0 days. 

Hadium F (po- 210 Alpha .. ·: ...... 136 days. 

loniun~. Hadium -r(leacl) 206 ........................ 

As the cl.isintegrn.tion of each substance in 

the series proceeds according to a definite law, 

which is unchanged by any external conditions: 

it follows that the quantity of any member of 

the series in existence at a given moment is 

related to the existing quantity of the first. 

n1ember, uranium. Each member is continually breaking down but is as constantly being 

replenished, so that each is in equilibrium with 

the others. The quantities of the uranium 

products in equilibrium with 1 kilogram of 

uranium are given by Rutherford 19 as follows: 

U1;anium 2, 196 milligram ( ~); ionium, 39 

n1ill.igrams ( n; radium, 0.34 milligrams. The 

quantities (in grams) of the radiuri1 products in 

equilibrium with 1 gran1 of radiun1 are: 

Emanation ..................... 5. 7X10-6 

Radium A ..................... 3.1x1o-9 

Hadium B· ................. ·_ ... 2. 7X10-8 

Hadium C ..................... 2.0xl0-8 

Hadium D............ . . . . . . . . . . 8. 6 X io-a 

Hadium ]~ ..................... 7. 1Xl0-6 

Hadium F ...................... l. 9X10-4 

Thus, for example, 1 kilogram of uranium in 

the earth is invariably associated with 0.34 

milligram of radium, and similarly the presence of a certain amount of emanation and the 

succeeding products indicates the presence of a 

certain clefrnite amo1.mt of radium. The ordinary method of determining small quantities 

of radium in rocks or minerals is an important 

practical application of this principle. The 

principle is important also in a study of the 

origin of helium, fo~· if the helium in natural 

gas is solely a product of radioactivity, its 

volume should bear a definite relation to those 

of the radio-elements. 

THE THORIUM-LEAD RADIOACTIVE SERIES. 

The foregoing account has, for the purpose 

of clarity, been confined to the uranium-lead 

series, but all the principles discussed apply 

equally well to another radioactive series, the 

fu·st member of which is thorium and the last 

another isotopic form. of lead. Thorium, like 

uranium, has a half-life period measm·ed in 

billions of years, and the succeeding products 

u.re very·short-lived. Thorium X and thorium 

e1nanation are analogous to radium and radium 

emanation, and the next lower bodies resemble 

the corresponding ones in the uranium series. 

The thorium series involves a total loss of 24 in 

atomic weight, indicu.ting the formation of 6 

helium atoms. The sequence of the thoriumlead series is shown in the follmving table: 

The thorium-lead radioactive series. 

Atomic Rays. Half-life period. weight. 

Thorium ....... 232 Alpha .......... 1. 8 X 1010 years. :Mesot.horium 1 . 228 Beta .......... 5.5 vears. Mesothorium 2 . 228 Beta and gam- 6.2 :homs. ma. Radiothorium .. 228 Alpha .......... 2 vears. Thorium X ..... 224 ..... do ......... 3.65 days . 'l'horium em a- 220 ..... do ......... 54 sec. nation. 

Thorium A ..... 216 . .... do ......... 0.14 sec. Thorium B ..... 212 Beta and gam- 10.6 hours. rna. Thorium C ..... .. 212 Alpha and beta . 60 min. 

Thorium D1 •••• 208 Beta and gam- 3.1 min. rna. Thorium D2 208 ...................... 

(lead). 

OTHER RADIOACTIVE SER~ES • 

Actinium, the first member of a radioactive 

series analogous to those already described, was 

discovered by Debierne in 1899, and seven 

lower members of the series. have since been 

identified. It has not yet been possible to .determine the atomic weight of actinium, however, and the relation of the series is not clear, 

though actinium occurs in association with 

ur~nium, and the series is generally believed to 

be a branch of the uranium-lead series. The 

decay of actinium, which, according to Debierne, 

results in tJ1e formation of helium,2° is exceed1o n.utherford, E., nadioact.ive substances and their radiations, pp. 2() Debierne, A., Experiences sur la production de !'helium par lessub408, 518, Cambridge; 1913. stances radioactives: Annales phys., vol. 2, pp. 428-488, 1914. 
14 HELIUM-BEARING N~TURAL GAS. 

ingly slow, but the half-life periods of the succeeding products are very rapid, being measured in seconds or minutes. 

In addition to the elements of the uranium, 

thorium, ·and actinium series, which are comparable in regard to strength of radioactivity, 

there are apparently certain much more 

faintly radioactive elements. Thus the researches of Campbell and Wood 21 indicate that 

certain of the alkali metals, notably potassium 

and rubidium, are faintly radioactive. Although the activity of potassium, as measured 

by its ionizing power, is only about one onethousandth that of uranium, the fact that 

potassium is thousands of times as abundant 

as uranium in the earth's crust lends its activity 

a-. special significance geochemically. On the 

other hand, the rays given off by potassium 

appear to be beta rays 22 or electrons, and there 

is yet no experimental basis for supposing that 

the decay. of potassium results in the expulsion 

of alpha rays and the formation of helium. 

For the purposes of this paper, therefore, the 

possible relation of potassium and rubidium 

to the formation of helium need not be considered further. 

RATE OF PRODUCTION OF HELIUM BY THE RADIOELEMENTS. 

As the disintegration of each radioactive sub-

. stance proceeds at a definite rate, it is evident 

that any such -substance will yield a definite 

and radium A, B, and C-is 13.6 X1010 ; and as 

there are 2.78 x1019 atoms of helium in 1 cubic 

centimeter at standard pressure and temperature it can be calculated that the rate of production of helium per gram of radium is 158 cubic 

millimeters a year. ··Actual meas_urements by 

Rutherford and Boltwood indicated a rate of 

164 cubic millimeters, which is well within 

the limits of exper.imental error. 

The rate of production of helium by uranium 

and thorium in equilibrium with ·their products 

is shown in the following table: 23 

Rate of production of heli-urn. 

Total number of Helium produced 

Radioactive substance. alpha particles per pc( ~~~ ~li r_car 

gram per second. meters). 

Uranium ................ 2. 37X104 2. 75X10-5 

Uranium in equilibrium with all its products __ 9. 7 X104 11.0 X10-5 

Thorium in equilibrium with all its products __ 2. 7 X10~ 3. 1 xw-5 

Radium in equilibrium 

with emanation, ra- dium A, and radium C. 13.6 X1010 158 

Experimental confirmation of these calculations has-been furnished by Strutt,Z4 who carefully measured the quantity of helium produced by thorianite and pitchblende, ancient 

minerals in which complete equilibrium had 

long been established. Strutt's results are as 

follows: 

Rate of production of heli-urn frorn thorianite and pitchblende. 

UaOa (per Th02 (per 

Helium produced per gram per year (cubic millimeters). 

cent). cent). 1---------,------

Observed. Calculated. 

Thorianite, Galle district. _ - ____ . -. - -- . - -. - - - - - -.. -. - -. -. - - - - - 24.50 

13.10 

37.6 

65.44 

72.65 

None. 

3. 70X10-5 

2. 79X10-5 

3.16X1Q-5 

4.1X10-5 

3. 2X10-5 

3. 5X10-5 Ordinary thorianite ..... ___ .. ____ .... --.----.--- .. -.--- ... ---.-- Pitchblende ...... _ .. _ ...... -~-_ .. ------.--------- .. -------:··--

quantity of helium in a given time; and as 

each substance is in equilibrium with all the 

others, it follows that the amount of helium 

produced in a given time by the whole series is 

also a fixed quantity. Rutherford has shown 

that the number of alpha particles expelled per 

second from a gram of radium in equilibrium 

with its immediate descendants-43manation 

21 Campbell, Norman, and Wood, Alexander, The radioactivity of the 

alkali metals: Cambridge Philos. Soc. Proc., vol. 14, pt. 1, p. 15, 1907. 

22 Campbell, Norman, The beta rays from potassium: Cambridge 

Philos. Soc. Proc., vol. 14, pt. 2, p. 211, 1907. 

The agreement between the observed and · 

calculated results is sufficiently close to confirm 

the validity of the principles on which the calculations~ were based.· With these data it is 

obviously possible to calculate the amount of 

helium being produced in nature un.der nor~al 

conditions each year. (See pp. 59-60.) 

23 Rutherford, E., Radioactive substances and their radiations, p. 560-, 

Cambridge, 1913. · 

24 Strutt, R. J., Measurements of theratcat whichheliumis produced 

in thorianite and pitchb<lende, with a minimum estimate of their 

antiquity: Roy. Soc. London Proc., ser. A, vol.-84 ,p. 379, 1~10. 

• 

.. 

• 

• 

• 

• 
•• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

NATURE OF HELIUM. 15 

ASSOCIATION OF HELIUM WITH THE RARE 

GASES. 

I-Ielium usually occurs in nature associated 

with a group of inert gaseous elements com-

'monly referred to as the rare gas~s of the ·atmosphere.25 The :first of these gases to be disco,7ered was argon, so named because of its 

chemical inertness. In.1892 Rayleigh observed 

that the nitrogen of the atmosphere is slightly 

heavier than nitrogen prepared in the laboratory, and an investigation of this discrepancy 

by Rayleigh and Ramsay led to the discovery, 

two years later, of the new element argon. As 

already described, it was Ramsay's search for 

the occurrence of argon in minerals that led him 

to the discovery of helium. The inertness of 

both these gases, as well as correspondence in 

.other properties, indicated that they belong to 

the same family, and by deductions ·drawn 

from the periodic classification of the elements 

Ramsay was led to predict that three other 

similar gases remained to be discovered. Mter 

fruitless search for these elements in minerals 

and in sea water, Ramsay and Travers finally 

discovered them in the atmosphere, a year after 

the prediction was made. 

Particulars regarding the group of rare gases 

are given in the following table : 

nation is dissolved in water, and argon when 

it is dissolved in a solution of copper salts; but 

this is denied by Debierne, 'J7 who used methods 

more refined than Ramsay's, and the theory 

has not been generally accepted. 

The association of helium with the rare 

gases appears to be more reasonably explained 

by the work of Moureu and Lepape, who have 

investigated ·the occurrence of these elements 

in the gases of many mineral springs and in 

mine gases. They find that all these elements 

occur in every gas examined and that the relative proportions of all of them except helium 

are always nearly constant and closely approximate their proportions in the atmosphere. 

This is accounted for by Moureu and Lepape 

on the grounds that (1) the gases are chemical-· 

ly inert and (2) they retain their gaseous state, 

in which they are perfectly miscible, under 

wide variations of temperature and pressure. 

As no ~hemical forces operate to add or subtract any one of them from a gaseous mi~ture, 

and as physical forces such as diffusion and 

occlusion have only a minor influence, it is to 

be expected that in the atmosphere and in all 

other natural gases these elements will occur 

in essentially the same mutual proportionsproportions which, according to the . authors 

Properties of the rare gases and their proportion in the atmosphere. 

Symbol. Atomic 

weight. (air=1). 

Density Boiling (oC.), point v~~~~~~~he 

Helium ................ ; ........................ . Neon ........................................... . 

t~~-~:·:_:_:~-:-:~:·::_:_:_:_:_:::::::::::::::::::::::::: 

He 

Ne 

A 

Kr 

Xe 

The group relationship of these gases is 

shown by their regularly increasing atomic 

weights and densities and by their decreasing boiling points. It is confirmed by the fact 

that they all exhibit ~hemical inactivity, showing no tendency to combine with other elements (except, indeed, in so far as uranium 

may be regarded as a combination of helium 

and lead). Ramsay 26 has sought to show that 

neon and argon also originate through the decay of radium emanation, ~eon when the emallll Soc Humsuy, Willli\Jll, Tho gusos of the atmosphere, London, 1915. 

~o Cumoron, A. T.; 1\lHl Rumsay, William, The chemical action of 

radium omauution: Chem. Soc. Jour., vol. 91, pp. 1593-1606, 1907. 

atmosphere . 

4.00 0.1368 -268.5 0.0004 

20.2 . 6963 -239.0 . 00123 

39.9 1. 379 -186.1 . 937 

82.92. 2.868 -151.7 .028 

130.2 I 4.526 -109.1 .005 

cited, must be those in which the elements 

occurred in the primordial nebula from which 

the earth sprang. This last conclusion seems 

a bit overdrawn, for the authors apparently do 

not take into account the difference in the solubility of the gases in natural waters, which 

might result in ~ltering their proportions considerably. The great irregularity in the proportions of helium, however, is easy to explain 

by reason of the constant formation of helium 

through the decay of the radio-elements. On 

the other hand, as helium is also inert, in the 

11 Debieme, A., Experiences sur Ia production de !'helium par les substances radioactives: Annates phys., vol. 2, p. 433, 1914. 
16 HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 

sense that it can not be removed from a inixture by ~ombination with other elements, and 

as it is constantly being generated in the earth, 

it follows that all subterranean gaseous mixtures should contain a larger proportion of 

helium than the atmosphere.-

·The following table shows the ratios of argon 

to nitrogen, of krypton to argon, of xenon to 

argon, and of xenon to krypton in a number of 

gases, as compared with their ratios in the 

atmosphere. It will be noted that all of these 

ratios approximate unity, which represents 

the corresponding value in the atmosphere. 

So far as the writer knows, the only ,investigation -yet made that conflicts with these results is Ramsay's discovery of 0.24 part· of 

neon per 100 parts of nitrogen in the gases 

emitted by the Bath Mineral Springs, England, the ra~io of neon to nitrogen in this case· 

being about 244 times as high as it is in the 

atmosphere. 28 Moureu and Lepape unfortunately did not determine neon quantitatively, 

though they ascertained its presence in all the 

gases which they examined. 29 

2s· Ramsay, William, Report on the mineral waters of Bath: Chern. 

News, vol. 105, p. 133, 1912. 

291\foureu, Charles, and Biquard, R., Sur Ia presence du neon parmi 

les gaz de quelques sources thermales: Compt. Rend., vol. 143, p. 180, 

1906. 

Ratios of the rare gases in the gases of mineral springs and in gas from Vesuvius, as compared 1.vith their ratios in the 

atmosphere. a 

Source of gas. 

A/N2 gas 

A/N2 air 

Air .................. :....................................... 1. 00 

Aix-Ies-Bains (Soufre)........................................ 1. 05 

Bagneres-de-Bigorre (Salies)................................... 1. 17 

Bagneres-de-Luchon (Bordeu No. 1).......................... 1. 11 

Bagneres-de-Luchon (Ferras, enceinte)......................... 1. ·os 

Bagneres-de-Luchon (Saule No. 2) ...... ·. . . . .. .. .. .. . . .. . . .. .. . 1. 13 

Bourhon-1' Archambault....................................... . 77 

Cauterets (La Raillere) .............. .'.................. ... . . . .. . 1. 19 

La Bourboule (Choussy)...................................... 1. 58 

Longwr. ( Recollets ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. 18 

Luxeuil (Grand-Bam) ........................................ · 1. 14 

Nancy (Pare Ste.-Marie)..................................... .. 1.14 

Plombieres (Vauquelin)...................................... 1. 41 

Plombieres (No. 3)... .. . . .. .. .. . .. . .. . . . .. . . . .. .. . .. .. . . .. . . . 1. 23 . St._ Honore (Crevasse)......................................... 1. 02 · U r1age .......................................... = . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 

Vichy ( Chomel) ........... ·. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. 40 

Vichy (Grande-Grille). . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 2. 85 Vesuviu~ ....................................... ~ ...................... . 

K.r/A gas 

Kr/A ai':_ 

l.O 

1.2 

1.1 

1.2 

l.l 

1. 2 

1.5 

1.3 

1.8 

1.2 

1.4 

1.5 

1.4 

1. 2 

1.3 

1.2 

1.4 

1. 5 

1. 1 

Xe/A gas XefKrgas 

XefA air Xc/Kr air 

1. 0 1.0 

1.6 1.3 

1.6 1.3 

1.6 1. 3 

1. 2 1. 1 

1. 9 1. 6 

1.6 1. 1 

1.2 .9 

2. 2 1. 2 

1. 9 1.6 

1.6 1. 1 

1.9 1.3 

1.9 1. 3 

1.6 1. 3 

1.2 .9 

1. 9 1.6 

1.9 1.3 

2.5 1.6 

1. 2 1.1 

a Moureu, Charles, and Lepape, A., Do~age spectrophotometriquc du xenon: Constance des rapports xenon-argon ct xenon-kryp~on. dan~ Ies 

melanges gazeux naturels: Compt. Rend., vol. 153, p. 740~ 1911; Sur le rapport de l'argon a !'azote dans lcs melanges gazcux ct sa Sigmficatwn: Idem, vol. 152, p. 1533, 1911; Sur Ia constance du rapport au krypton a !'argon dans les melanges gazeux nature~s; Hypothese explicative: Idem, 

vol. 152, p. 935, 1911. 

The following table shows the proportions of tl;le ra_re gases, including helium, in the fire 

damp of certain coal mines: 

Ratios of the rare gases in the fire damp of coal mines, as compared with their ratios in the atmosphere.a 

Mine. 

A/N2 gas Kr/A gas Xc/A gas Xc/Krgas Hc/N2gas 

A/N2 air Kr/A air Xe/A air Xe/Kr air HejN2 air 

Lievin .......................................... 1. 38 1.4 1.2 0. 9 790 

Anzin ........................................... . 97 1 1.1 1.1 3,470 

Lens ................................ ----.- .... --- 1. 72 .5 . 3 . 7 30 

Mons (Belgium) .................................. . 82 1.3 2. 1 1. 6. 23,100 

Frankenholz (Palatinate) ........................ .85 1.1 1. 2 1.1 1,950 

a Moureu, Charles, and Lcpap<>, A., Les gaz rares des grisous: Compt. Rend., vol. 153, p. 847, 1911; Sur le~; rapports des gaz rarcs entre cux et avec !'azote dans lcs grisous: Idem, p. 10.13. · . _ . · . 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

.. 

·-

• 
•• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

DISTRIBUTION AND RELATIONS OF HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 17 

The foregoing figm·es indicate a striking 

constancy in the relat~'-re proportions of argon, 

krypton, and xenon in the gases of springs, in 

:inine gases, in a volcanic gas, and in the air arid 

lend considerable weight to the tl;leory of Moureu and Lepape that all natur~l gaseous mL"\:-

ttu·es should contain these elements in about 

the same proportions. As noted above, the 

difference in the solubility of the rare gases in 

water prevents too strict au application of this 

theory, but the presence of these elements in 

at Fillmore, Calif., and near :Havre, Mont .. 

The distribution of helium-bearing gas in the 

United States is shown on· the accompanying 

'index map (fig. 1). 

The helium-rich gas of the Kansas-Oklahoma · 

area is confined tq strata of middle and upper 

Pennsylvanian age, though gas carrying almost 

0.5 per cent of helium occurs in the lower 

Pennsylvanian. The Mississippian and Permian gases in that locality are poor in helium. 

Conditions in the Texas area are almos·t identi-

:FIGURE 1.-Index map sl.10wing general distribution of natural gas rich in helium . 

nearly all the gases that have been tested for 

them and their common association with 

helium appear 'to be satisfactorily explained. 

DISTRIBUTiON AND RELATIONS OF HELIUMBEARING NATURAL GAS. 

GENERAL OUTLINE . 

cal; gas carrying more than 0.5 per cent has 

been found only in the upper Pennsylvanian, 

and that containing from 0.25 to 0.5 per cent 

in the lower Pennsylvanian, the Mississippian 

and Permian gases being poor. In Ohio, .how- · 

ever, gas carrying 0.33 per cent ocelli'S in a 

saud of lower Mississippian age and in the 

Although. n1ost of .the nattu·al gas produced Clinton sand, of Silurian age. The heliumin the eastern and central parts of the United bearing gas of HaYre, :Mont., is of Cretaceous 

States contains at least a trace of helium, gas age, but nearly all samples of Cretaceous gas 

containing more than 0.5 per cent is known to from other parts of the United States show 

occtu· only in two areas, one in northern Texas only traces of helium, and most samples of 

and the other in southern Kansas and northern Tertiary gas contain none. . 

Oldahoma. Gas containing from 0.25 to 0.5 All the helium-rich natural gases contain 

per cent of helium is found on the borders of .large proportions of nitrogen and are therefore 

these areas and also in Vinton County, Ohio,.· characterized by lower heating value than 

10135°-21-' 2 
18 HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 

ordinary natural gas. Some of the Kansas 

gases carry about 2 per cent of helium and 85 

per cent of nitrogen; the gas from Petrolia, 

Tex., contains about 1 per cent of helium and 

·almost 40 per cent of nitrogen; and the gas 

from Vinton County, Ohio, carries about 0~35 

per cent of helium and 14 per cent of nitrogen. 

On the other hand, not all high-nitrogen gases 

are rich in helium; many shallow gases ain 

northern Oldahoma carry 30 to 40 per cent of 

nitrogen and yet contain less than 0.25 per 

cent. of helium. (SeeP'· 40.) 

In the I{ansas-Oklahoma area the gases richest in helium occur at shallow depths. In a 

given locality the helium content of the gas 

decreases with increasing depth, and it. also 

appears that the gas from a given formation 

is richer in helium where the formation occurs 

close to the surface than where it lies at considerable depth. · In the Vinton County area, 

Ohio, however, the gas in the Berea sand at a 

depth of about 500 feet carries no more helium 

than that in the Clinton sand ·at about 2,300 

feet. 

MID-CONTINENT REGION. 

LOCATION. 

In the l\1id-Continent region gas containing 

more than 0.5 per cent of helium occurs in an 

oval area lying chiefly in southeastern Kansas 

but extending a short distance into Oklahoma. 

This area extends about due south from Chase 

County, Kans., to Osage County, Okla., and 

eastward from western Butler County to Wilson 

County, Kans. Gas containing between 0.25 

and 0.5 per cent of helium is found in the districts adjoining this area on the north, east, 

and south. As shown in Plate I, the total area 

in which gas containing more than 0.25 per 

cent of helium -is found extends from Johnson 

County, in northeastern Kansas, to Payne 

County, in north-central Oklahoma. . 

As shown in Plate II the area richest in 

helium lies on the west-central edge of the 

great Mid-Continent oil and gas region, and its 

western limit is at· present determined by the 

western limit of oil and gas development. The 

area of gas carrying more than 0.25 per cent 

of helium, however, includes the western half 

of the Mid-Continent petroleum. region. It is 

thus bounded -on the north, west, and south 

by districts in which no oil or gas· has yet been 

found. Although it is somewhat improbable 

that the producing areas will be greatly extended in those directions, it is possible that 

future discoveries will somewhat enlarge the 

helium-bearing district as here defined. 

GEOLOGY. 

GENERAL RELATIONS. · 

'The Mid-Continent oil and gas region, viewed 

broadly, lies in a great syncline or elongated 

basin, on the northeastern margin of which is 

the Ozark uplift.. It is divided into two parts 

by the east-west belt of t4e Ouachita, Arbuckle; 

and Wichita mountains. The western border 

of the basin has not been definitely determined. 

There is paleontologic evidence to indicate that 

a varied body of uplifted Paleozoic rocks intervenes between the Mid-Continent field and the 

plains which border the Rocky Mountains on 

the east, but the presence of such an ancient 

land mass can not be regarded as established. 

The relations of the Mid-Continent area may 

best be understood by inspection of Plate II, 

which shows in generalized form the areal and. 

structural geology of the whole region. 

The prevailing clip of the rocks is toward the 

west. The clip ranges between about 15 feet 

to the mile· in northern Kansas and about 80 

feet to the mile in central Oklahoma, but locally 

the beds are horizontal or even inclined to the 

east, forming the terraces and anticlines that 

are so important in connection with the accumulation of oil and gas. Pennsylvanian strata 

form the surface rocks in the ·eastern and central parts of the petroleum region, but Permian 

formations appear near its western edge. 

Farther to the west the Permian strata are 

buried beneath Cretaceous beds, and these in 

turn by Tertiary formations. Nearer t.he 

Rocky Mountain front the general dip becomes 

easterly and the Cretaceous strata reappear, 

and at the base of the mountains the truncated 

edges of Permian, Pennsylvanian, Cambrian, 

and Ordovician formations are also exposed. 

As sho'Wn in the structure section on Plate II, 

this great sedimentary basin is in a measure 

divided into at least two smaller basins by a 

narrow ridge or elevated portion of the preCambrian granite floor. This ridge has been 

reached by the drjll at numerous points in 

Kansas; where its course and contour are fairly 

well defined, but it appears to plunge rather 

sharply to the south and has not been located 

in Oklahoma. The present petroleum-yielding 

region in Kansas lies. almost wholly east of this 

.ridge, or in the smaller of the two basins. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

•• 

• 

• 

• 
•• '\ 

• 

•• 

•• • 

• 

• 

• 

•• 

• 

U.S. GROLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 121 PLATE I 

IE=O===:el:o===te:o =======23:0==~3o~======40ir:::==~so Miles 

Gas fields 

0.50· Percentage of helium in gas 

54/.· Percentage of nitrogen in gas 

EXPLANATION 

·~ Outline of area in which richest gas contains more than !f.! f. of helium 

Outline of area in which richest gas contains more than~i!of helium 

I 

___ j 

--, 

:£~!.!'~ Fr,~b:l . --t 

--. -~ I 

EROKEE~J @ 

Columbus 

MAP OF SOUTHERN KANSAS AND NORTHERN OKLAHOMA GAS FIELDS, AND SECTION ACROSS 

COWLEY, CHAUTAUQUA, AND MONTGOMERY COUNTIES, KANSAS 

Showing ·distribution and quality of helium-bearing gas 

~ 

~ ...... 

l!l ;l,.. 

~ 

h 

. ~ 

~c !!l t-~ Ill 

g-;"2 .l!lCI) 

:l 

2 'E (.) 5 I ........ 

f>l .. .:I 

I ~ 

:i~ il\ 0 

X 

i"f! ~2 ·~ .c: 

1 ~ cu 

£ 

~ j ~ z 

0 

N g 

~ p:J i ';;) ~tO LLI 

"" ~ 

~~ .I 0::1--" 

I 

'B 

e ~ ~ ::> 

~ 0 

@ 

J! 
• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

DISTRIBUTION AND RELATIONS OF HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 19 

The oil and gas occur very largely in strata 

of Pennsylvanian age, though some petroleum 

is n.lso found in the upper :Mississippian and in 

the basal Permian formations. The Pennsylvanian beds have a ma..~imum thickness of 

about 3,500 feet in southeastern Kansas, where 

they are underlain by about 2,500 feet of older 

Paleozoic sediments. Toward the west, how-· 

ever, or aiong the line of the pre-Cambrian 

grnnite ridge, all these older formations disappear, the granite being overlain directly by 

Pennsylvanian strata. This IS the condition 

on the western edge of the helium-bearing 

area, though this area also extends to the east, 

where the pre-Cambrian rocks lie at considerably greater depth. Practically all the Pennsylvanian formations becom~ thicker to the 

south, and in eastern Oklahoma the senes 

aggreg~tes many thousand feet in thickness: 

No helium is· found in that district, however, 

and its gpology need not be considered here. 

CARBONIFEROUS FOlillA'l'IONS. 30 

The petroleum-bearing rocks of the MidContinent area are wholly of Carboniferous 

age, and the great bulk of the oil produced is 

obtained :from the lower and middle parts of 

the PennsylYanian series. Owing to the westerly dip the upper. portion of the Permian series 

crops outonlyin central Kansas and need not be 

"considered here, but the character and classification of the lower Permian formations and 

of the Pennsyhranian and ~1'ississippian beds 

are shown graphically in figure 2. 

The Permian of Kansas consists of two very 

distinct lithologic and stratigraphic units, the 

upper o:f which, consisting of nonmarine reel 

shale and sandstone, does not crop out within 

the a.rea under discussion. The lower unit consists of marine shale, limestone, and sandstone 

and is very similar lithologically to the underlying Pennsylvanian series. The total thickness of this unit is probably about 1,100 feet, 

but only the basal formations, aggregating 

about 400 -feet in thickness, are exposed in the 

known helium-bearing area. 

Th.e Pennsylvanian series 111 southeastern 

Kansas has a max:imum thickness of about 

3,500 feet. As shown !n figure 2 the uppermost Pennsylvanian has been divided into a 

number of thin and relatively unimportant 

so A more dctailro description of the Carboniferous formations in 

Kansasisgivon by R. C. Moore and W. P. Haynes (Oil and gas resources 

oiKansns: Kansas Ocol. Survey Bull. 3, pp. 84-123, 1917). 

GROUP 

SUMNER GROUP 

650'-950' 

CHASE GROUP 

Z30~270' 

COUNCIL GROVE GROUP 

ISO' 

WABAUNSEE GROUP 

soo+ 

SHAWNEE GROUP 

375'-soo' 

@ 'DOUGLAS GROUP 

~ :iso~ss6' 

~ 

SECTION I ~WE LEVEL 

JVVV 

FORMATION 

Wellington shale Marion formation 

Doyle shale 

~ort.__Riley limestone. 

Wref'ord 

Garrison formation 

lmdale 

. Americus limelrt.one==l 

Admire shale 

L,~, )ViJ~~~dli,'!'_~h·e~~~~.t~o"'e==1 ·o 

Scranton sh-ale 

F=~=~~~ew~-~~~li~~~e====~ 

Calhoun shale 

_eco~~~:seh shale 

Kanwaka shale 

'"v Oread limestone 

Lawrence shale 

n limestone====! ::' 

k tr-::;;;,;;:~~ii~~~~~~~a~"''<~on~,m~ne~s,~::onne~~~ LANSING GROUP Vilas shale "'· 'Ia· csou rR 11mestone 

125~250' Ml !-.3 '250 

KANSAS CITY GROUP 

zoo'-350' 

PLEASANTON 

GROUP 

2.75'- 360' 

HENRIETTA 

GROUP 

100'-zoo~ 

1000'- 2200' 

PRE-CAMBRIAN 

lola limestone 

Cherryvale shale 

~ales.burg 

/::JU 

Bandera shale 

2.500 Pawnee limestone 

lll~zzso 

F.:'=~~rzooo 

.•:.·.·.·.·.·.·. >0 

·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·: 

0 

tort. Scott 1mest.one 

Cherokee shale 350'-700' 

Boone lime:;tone 300~350' 

Grani~e; etc. 

FIGURE 2.-0P.neralizcd section of formations in eastern Kansas. 
20 HELIUM-BEARING NA'J;'URAL GAS. 

formations known collectively as the Wabaunsee group. This group is underlain by the 

Shawnee, Douglas,· Lansing, Kansas City, 

Pleasanton, and Henrietta groups, and the 

Cherokee shale, which have themselves been 

subdivided into the formations shown in the 

columnar section. Although many of these formations, especially the limestones, are remarkably persistent and may be traced throughout 

most of eastern Kansas, the Pennsylvanian 

series as a whole, together with the lower 

half of the Permian, eonstitutes a broad lithologic unit. All the upper and middle Pennsylvanian rocks consist of alternating beds of 

shale, limestone, and sandstone. The shale 

is by far the most abundant; the limestone 

beds are generally less than 25 feet thiek, and 

the sandstones are commonly thin and discontinuous. The Cherokee formation differs somewhat from the remainder of the series in that 

it contains fewer limestone beds and more 

sandstones, which, though inconspicuous as 

stratigraphic units, are· of great economic importance as oil sands. 

The Mississippian series,. which crops out in 

the extreme southeast corner of Kansas, consists chiefly of crystalline limestone with a 

considerable proportion of hard chert. In 

eastern Kansas the series is not more than 350 

feet thick, and along the granite ridge on the 

west edge of the oil and gas region the Mississippian is entirely absent.· It has not been 

encountered by wells drilled west of this belt, 

though it may be present locally in western 

Kansas, as suggested in the stratigraphic section in Plate II. The upper surface of the 

Mississippian in eastern Kansas is very irregular, varying in elevation as much as 75 feet in 

a distance of half a mile, but its general in-· 

clination is not markedly different from that 

of the overlying Pennsylvanian beds. The 

Mississippian rests unconformably on the older 

Paleozoic formations. 

PRE-CARBONIFEROUS FORMATIONS. 

Beneath the oil-bearing rocks of the Carboniferous system lies a considerable thickness 

of Paleozoic formations which rest directly on 

the granite of the pre-Cambrian basement. 

These older formations do not crop out in 

Kansas but may be studied in the Ozark uplift 

of Missouri and on the Rocky Mountain front. 

On the northern and western flanks of the 

Ozark uplift Silurian and Devonian formations 

are exposed, but as these formations are absent 

in most of the Rocky Mountain area, they may 

not underlie much of the Kansas region. The 

chief formations involved in the Ozark uplift 

are of Cambrian and Ordovician age and consist of 2,000 to 2,500 feet of dolomite and limestone, with some sandstone and shale. In 

Colorado, however, the equivalent formations 

have a maximum thickness of only about 300 

feet and in many localities they are lacking. 

It is evident, therefore, that the Cambrian and 

Ordovician beds become much -thinner toward 

the west, though they doubtless underlie much 

of the Kansas region. As these beds were 

laid down directly on the granite basement 

and were subjected to uplift and erosion before 

the deposition of the Mississippian sediments 

their thickness from place to place presumably 

depends in part on the contour of the granite 

floor. · 

The granite and other crystalline rocks 

forming the basement on which the sedimentary 

formations described above were deposited are 

not exposed in Kansas but crop out in eastern 

Missouri, in the Rocky Mountains, in the 

Wichita and Arbuckle uplifts of southern 

Oklahoma, and in the southern pfi!ts of Minnesota and South Dakot~;t. It was formerly supposed that the pre-Cambrian rocks underlie 

the Kansas region only at great depth, but 

drilling within the last few years has revealed 

the presence of ,granite at comparatively shallow depths in a zone extending through eastcentral Kansas and at somewhat greater 

depths at several isolated localities in the 

eastern part of the State.31 The coarse grain 

of the crystalline rocks and the unmetamorphosed character of the sediments immediately 

overlying them indicate beyond question that 

they are a part of the original basement and 

are_ not recent intrusions. 

The granite lies nearest to the surface in 

northern Kansas, where it is en9ountered at 

a depth of only about. 600 feet, but as far to 

the south as Chase County it lies in gen~ral 

within 2,000 feet of the surface. In that 

locality it appears to drop off sharply, but it is 

reported that granite has recently been encounat A comprehensive description of these crystalline rocks is given by 

R. C. Moore and W. P. Haynes (op. cit., pp. 140-173). 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

D Quaternary and Tertiary 

D Cretaceous 

D Jurassic and Triassic 

D Permian 

D Pennsylvanian 

D Mississippian 

Devonian and Silurian 

Ordovician and Cambrian 

. . Pre -Cambrian crystalline rocks 

D Post-Cambrian extrusive rocks 

,-~ 

, -, .... ____ ., Area in which shallow gas contains 

more than 'lz 7- helium 

Area in which shallow gas contains . more than V4% helium 

Oil field 

Gas field 

PROFESSIONAL PAPER 121 PLATE II 

GEOLOGIC MAP AND SEOI'IONS 

SHO"W1NG THE 

MID-CONTINENT AND NORTH TEXAS 

OIL REGIONS 

AND RELATIONS OF AREAS CONTAINING 

HELIUM-BEARING GAS 

Scale --

1- s.ooo,ooo 0 50 100 200 Miles ~~~~==~~~~~~~ 

1920 

Base from U.S. Geological Survey map of the United States 
• 

••• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

DISTRIBUTION AND RELATIONS OF HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 2f 

tered at a depth of about 4,000 feet in the 

Augusta fleld, in Butler County. The available information regarding this so-called 

granite ridge is summarized in figure 3, which 

shows the \Veils that have encountered granite 

and the depth at which they found it, and also 

the location and depth of other wells in this 

belt that did not reach the granite. As shown 

by the ,structure section, all the Mississippian· 

and older formations and much of the Pennsylvanian are lacking in the northern part of 

the granite belt, though in Butler County the 

whole of the Pennsylvanian and Mississippian 

series are probably present. 

The relations of the sedimentary formations 

to the granite ridge. indicate that the ridge was 

formed prior to the Pennsylvanian epoch. 

The small size of the elevated mass suggests, 

howev-er, that it could not hav-e remained 

long above sea level without being reduced 

by erosion, and furthermore, the Mississippian 

and older formations of eastern Kansas contain 

little clastic material, such as a near-by 

granite laud mass would furnish; hence .it is 

thought that the ridge was elevated at the 

end of the Mississippian epoch. .The Cambrian, 

Ordov-ician, and Mississippian formations were 

probably laid down throughout this ·area, but 

at the end of Mississippian time there was a 

period of uplift and erosion, as indicated by 

the uneven upper surface of the Mississippian 

itself. Differential uplift at this time probably 

led to the formation of .the long, narrow 

granite ridge, and dm·ing the e11suing period 

of erosion all the sedimentary formations were 

apparently removed from this elevated area. 

When resubmergence of the surrounding country took place at the beginning of Pennsylv-anian time most of the granite ridge remained an 

island, and it was not completely submerged 

until the end of the Shawnee epoch. 

As shown in figure 3, a well in Riley County, 

distinctly to the west of the main ridge, found 

granite at a depth of 2,385 feet, which n1ay 

indicate simply a shoulder on the western slope 

of the. main ridge or may represent another and 

distinct protuberance of the granite basement. 

Sin1ilarly a well in Woodson County, far to the 

east of the main ridge, found granite at 2,585 

feet, or only about 700 feet beneath the base 

of the Mississippian. A well at Paola, Miami 

County, is reported to have reached granite 

at 2,260 feet, or about 1,000. feet below the 

Mississippian. On the other hand, a well at 

lola, only about 20 miles east of the Woodson 

County well, entered the Mississippian at 1,040 

feet, and though it was dTillecl to 3,434 feet no 

granite was recorded. It seems, therefore, 

that the granite basement is irregular in 

contour a;nd that there may be other though 

less prominent ridges elsewhere in eastern 

Kansas. 

As the main granite ridge ~s coincident with 

the western border of the he~ium-rich area 

(though also extending far to the north and 

probably to the south of it), its structural relations are of special interest in connection with 

the source of the helium. · The great length 

and small width of the eleva ted area and also 

the dense and crystalline character of the rock . · 

inv-olv-ed strongly suggest that the ridge is au 

elevated fault block, or at least that one of its 

sides, probably the eastern, is determined by a 

fault. A. E. Fath, 32 of the Geological Survey, 

who. has given special attention to the mechanics of the structure of the Mid-Continent 

region, is in favor of this view and believes, 

moreover, that the basement rocks throughout 

the region are probably extensively fissured 

and that recent movements ~long these fissures have produced the many minor wrinkles 

that characterize the surface rocks of . the 

region. Among his reasons for this belief are 

the following: (1) The rocks above the granite 

ridge lie in very prominent .anticlines which in 

places represent structural elevations of over 

200 feet .. This fold is too large to be ex~ 

plained by differential settling and can best· 

be accounted for by thrust from below. (2) 

The presence of granite at moderate depth at 

sev-eral isolated localities in eastern Kansas 

suggests that there may be elsewhere similar 

elev-ations in the granite floor. (3) In Kansas 

and Oklahoma there are many anticlines parallel t<? the granite ridge which, though representiug uplifts of only a hundred feet or so, can be 

traced across sev-eral COUll ties. It is unreasonable to suppose that such regular and persistent 

structural features were produced by lateral 

thrusts which, so far as present knowledge 

indicates, must have originated sev-eral hundred miles east and west of the area. ( 4) The 

surface rocks in parts of northern Oklahoma 

. 32 Personal communication. M:r. Fath discusses his views at length 

in a paper entitled "The origin of the faults, anticlines, and buried 

'granite ridge' of the northern part of the Mid-Continent oil and gas 

field" (U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 128, pp. 75-84, 1920). 
22 

~ 

~ 

Cretaceous 

HE~IUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 

~ Permian. 

EXPLANATION 

Pennsylvonian 

~ 

~ 

·c. 

!;) 

0 

0 ·~ ~ ·~ .-. "l :: :~ 

"' 

~·,·~· 

-u;>:>uas 

... 

.I s:· . I I ~r I Well in wlrich .<5rmiite was We11 in whiclt no granite was encountered}'igtu:es show encormtered.Fig'!.!fes show- depth of §rani.te below depth of granite below 

eurface swface 

FIGURE 3,-Map of portion of eastern Kansas showing depth and relations of the granite ridge. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 
.... 

• 

• 

• 

• 

•• 

• 

• 

DISTRIBUTION AND RELATIONS OF HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 23 

are broken by n1any sn1all parallel faults 

which occur in zones that may be traced for 

many miles and that are essentially parallel to 

the granite ridge and to the main anticlines. 

These :faults can also best be explained as faint 

surface reflections of more extensive movements 

of the pre-Cambrian floor. 

Although the contour of the granite ridge 

itself for1ns the n1ost direct basis for assuming 

a fault in the pre-Cambrian rocks, the lines 

of mridence brought together by Mr. Fath thus 

furnish excellent ·reasons for suspecting the 

presence of many similar fault lines. This possibility is of special interest in connection with 

the som·ce of the ·helimn, as discussed on 

pages 66-6 7. 

STRATIGRAPHIC DISTRmUTION OF THE HELIUM. 

·Viewed broadly, the heliun1 content of natural gas is related to the stratigraphic position 

of the producing sands, though the relation is 

by no Ineans precise. Cady and :M:cFarland, 

in their report on the helium-bearing gas of 

Kansas, presented a 1nap s h owing . "' Iso-h e l' Ium " 

lines, which, as they pointed out, had a general 

sim.ilarity in trend to the outcrops of the 

geologic formations. The numerous analyses 

now available indicate, however, that such 

lines can not be drawn, for the factors of. the 

geographic location and depth beneath the 

surface Inust be taken into account, as well as 

the factor of stratigraphic position. 

The generalized structure section on Plate I 

· shows the helium content and relative stratigraphic position of a number of natural gases 

fron1 southern Kansas and northern Oklahoma. 

It will be noted at once that the gases richest. 

in he.liun1 occm· in middle and upper Pennsylvanian strata. The one sample of Mississippian gas collected in the :fields adjacent to the 

line of the section contained only 0.08 per 

cent of heliwn. Three samples. of gas from 

the Cherokee shale contained, a·s shown in the 

section, less than 0.1 per cent of helium. The 

gases of the overlying I-Ienrietta· and Pleasanton groups are considerably richer, three samples av-eraging 0.4 7 per cent. The Kansas 

City group, however, is ~he lowest in which 

gas carrying Inore than 1 per cent of helium 

has been found, and similarly rich gases occur 

in all the ov-erlying Pennsylvanian ·beds. The 

Permian gases, on the other hand, are poor in 

heliun1, the two samples plotted in the section 

showing only 0.27 and 0.1 per cent. 

In a broad sense, therefore, gases containing 

more than 0.5 per cent of helium seem to occur 

only. in the strata between the top of the W abaunsee group and the base of the Kansas City 

group, a stratigraphic range of about 2,000 · 

feet. If this conclusion is coiTect it follows 

that the area of gas carrying more than 0.5 per 

cent of helium is bounded on the east by the 

line along which the Kansas City group lies at a 

depth of 200 feet or so, for commercial accumulations of gas can hardly be expected at depths 

shallower than. this. The western limit of the 

area, however, is not determined by stratigraphic considerations, but it is · defined at 

present simply by the western limit of oil and 

gas development. Should this development 

be extended a considerable distance 'farther 

west, it may be presumed that the factor of 

depth will determine the western liniit of the 

helium-rich area, for, as described below, gases 

rich in helium apparently do not occur at 

depths greater thap. about 1,600 feet. The 

top of the Pennsylv-anian series probably 

reaches this depth ·within 25 miles to the west 

of the lmown heliun1-rich area. 

Although stratigraphic considerations serv-e 

to define the outer limits of the heliumbearing zone, it is ev-ident that the helium 

content of the gases within the zone varies 

greatly. Indiv-idual samples from approximately the same horizon in the Augusta :field 

:range in helium content from 0.2 to 1.1 per 

cent, and samples from the Sedan :field from 

1 to 2 per ·cent. Similarly the gas at· Otto, 

Kans., which carries 1.04 per cent of helium, 

occurs at about the same horizon as the gases of 

the Pearson and Myers :fields, Oklahoma, which 

av-erage only 0.48 and 0.37 per cent. Furthermore, the north and south limits of the heliumrich area are not related to stratigraphy or 

structure, and gases within the area that 

carry more than 2 per cent of helium occur 

at the sa.me general horizon as those outside 

that carry less than 0.25 per cent. 

Although the helium-rich gas of the MidContinent area thus occurs characteristically 

in upper and middle Pennsylvanian formations, 

it is found in those formations only in a certain 

area, and even in that area its vertical and 

horizontal distribution is irregular. 

VARIATION IN HELIUM CONTENT WITH DEPTH. 

The helium content of gases in the MidContinent :field is generally related to the depth 
24 HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 

at which the gases occur, deep gases being NORTH TEXAS REGION. 

poorer in helium than shallow ones. The gas LOCATION. 

occurring at a depth of 1,475 feet at O.tto, The only field in Texas in which gas containKans., contains about 1 per cent of helium, but ing more than 0.5 per cent of h~lium has yet 

nowhere else in the region is equally rich gas been found is the Petrolia field in Clay County. 

known to occur below 1,200 feet. On the other Gas carrying more than 0.25 per cent of helium, 

hand, gas carrying more than 1.75 per cent of however, occurs throughout a considerable area 

helium has been ciiscov~red only in the Augusta, lying to the south and southwest of Petrolia 

Dexter, and Sedan fields, and in all of these it and extending from that field to Coleman and 

occurs at depths of less than 600 feet .. The Brown counties. This area lies mostly to the 

gases richest in helium are high in· nitrogen and west of the great north Texas oil and gas fields, 

being thus of little value for heating are known but it is a district in which prospecting and 

in the fields as "wind gas"; and it is generally development are now very active. It is 

recognized by oil and gas operators that wind probable, therefore, that the boundaries of the 

gas occurs characteristically at shallow depth. area as shown on Plate III, especially the 

In most fields in which there are two or more western boundary, wjll be changed by future 

.gas sands the shallowest gas is richest in helium. developments. 

At Augusta, for_ example, the 600-foot gas All sources of supply in northern and central 

contains 2 per cent of helium rund the 1,500-foot · Texas and southern Oklahoma were sampled 

gas averages only 0.5 per cent. At Eldorado at the time of the writer's visit, in July, 1918. 

the 900-foot gas averages 1.2 per cent, and the The location of the gas fields· and the helium 

1 ,200-foot gas 1 per cent. . At Sedan the 400- . content of their product are shown in more . 

foot gas averages more than 1.5 per cent, detail in Plate III. 

whereas the 700-foot gas carries only about 

1 per cent. 

Owing to the fact that the dip of the strata 

throughout the Mid-Continent field is comparatively gentle, vertical and stratigraphic distances are about the same, and in some localities 

it is ·difficult to decide whether the helium 

content of the gas is influenced more by its 

depth beneath the surface or by its stratigrfltphi~ position. It seems clear, however, 

that the gas from a given formation is likely 

to be richer in helium in localities where the 

formation lies at shallow depth than where it 

occurs at greater depth. This is shown in the 

structure section on Plate I, though it must be 

admitted that the relation is rather irregular 

and vague. On the other hand, in some 

localities the factor of depth seems to be less 

important than that of stratigraphic position. 

In the Billings field, for example, the 500-foot 

gas which occurs in the Permian contains only 

0.1 per cent of helium, whereas the 1,000-foot 

gas, which probably occurs in the uppermost 

Pennsylvanian strata, carries 0.39 per cent. 

Similarly the gas of the Cherokee shale in 

eastern Kansas seems to be uniformly poor in 

helium, though it occurs in many localities at 

shallow depths. 

GEOLOGY. 

The north Texas oil and gas region lies near 

the eastern· rim of the great Carboniferous 

basin which underlies most of western Texas 

and ·eastern New Mexico. Toward the west 

this basin extends northward without interruption into western Oklahoma and Kansas, 

but on the east it is partly separated from the 

Mid-Continent basin by ·the Wichita and 

Arbuckle uplifts of southern Oklahoma. The 

north Texas petroleum region thus lies betwee~ 

these two · areas of disturbance on the north 

and the Llano-Burnet uplift on the south, and 

jts structural features are greatly influenced 

by its position with regard to them. The areal 

arid structural geology of the region is shown 

in generalized form on Plates II and III. 

The oil-bearing rocks of the north Texas 

region are of Carboniferous age, an_d Carboniferous formations also constitute the surface 

rocks throughout most of the region. PreCarboniferous beds do not crop out within the 

helium-bearing area and have riot been penetrated by the· drill except in its southern portion, but they may be studied in the LlanoBurnet uplift, to the south, and in the Wichita 

and Arbuckle mountains, to the north. The 

•• 

• 

• 

• 

·• 

• 

• 

• 
• 

PROFESSIONAL PAPER 121 PLATE III 

MAP OF NORTHERN TEXi\S AND SOUTHERN ·oKLAHOMA 

Showing oil and gas fields, distribution of helium-bearing gas, and relations 

of fields to area of uplift 

Scale z.sOti:ooo 10 20 'oO 60 MILES 

19ZO 

EXPLANATION 

I ~1 Gas field. 

EJ 

Oil field 

C¥ZJ 

Up.,,,.....nmcfP ofheliurn ingBB 

Tr indicates 

small trace 
• 

DJSTIU.BUTION AND RELATIONS OF HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 25 

formations invohred are shown in. t~e accom- mations are based on observations in the 

panying columnar section. (fig. 4), in which Llano-Burnet district. 

the data regarding the pre-Carboniferous for- The formations exposed in the Llano-Burnet 

FORMATION 

CLEAR FORK 

FORMATION 

CHARACTER OF 

FORMATION 

area have been described in detail by Paige.33 

The oldest rocks are granite, schist, and gneiss, 

Red and blue clay, sandv. with igneous intrusions, and are probably of 

shale,limestone,and sanCI- Algonkian age. These rocks are surrounded stone, with some gypsum 

1------~::...:..:::~=+--1--------J by a rim of Cambrian and Ordovician beds 

WICHITA 

FORMATION 

Red and bluish-gray clay; shaleand sanoston~ 

dipping outward from the center of the uplift; 

As shown in the columnar section these rocks 

consist chiefly of limestone, dolomite, and 

calcareous sandstone and shale, \vith a conCISCO 

glomerate at the base, and aggregate 950 to 

1,600 feet in thickness. In the Wichita 

Mountains, however, the pre-Pennsylvanian Shale,conglomerate, sand- • · stone, ana some limestone formations, according to Ta:ff,S4 have a very FORMATION and.coal · much greater thickness. The earliest CamCANYON 

FORMATION 

STRAWN 

FORMATION 

Limestone and clay, with some sandstone and 

conglomerate 

Sandstone and clay, with some conglomerate and 

shale. Lower IOOOfeet 

chiefly blue and black clay 

.i''IoUim 4.-Goneralizod colwru1ar section of formations in north-central 

Toxas. Tho thir.Jmossos of tho pro-Carboniferous formations are those 

measured by Paige in the Llano-Durnot uplift. The equivalent formations in tho Wichita and Arbuckle uplifts are very much thicker; 

hence in tho north Texas oil region they nre doubtless considerably 

thicker than hero shown. · 

brian formation _in the Wichita l\1ountains is 

similar in character and thickness to the 

Hickory sandstone of Texas, but it is overlain 

by a Cambrian and Ordovician formation_, the 

.Arbuckle limestone, which is 4,000 to 6,000 feet 

thick. The only other pre-Carboniferous formation exposed in the Wichita Mountains is 

an Ordovician limestone about 300 feet thick, 

but in the Arbuckle Mountains, 60 miles to the 

east the formations present include the Simpson formation and the Viola limestone of 

Ordovician age, aggregating 2,000 to 2,500 feet 

in thickness; the Sylvan shale, also of Ordovician age, 60 to 300 feet thick; the Chinineyhill 

limestone,· 53. feet thick, and the B:enryhouse 

shale, 223 feet thick, of Silurian age; the 

I-Iaragan shale, 161 feet thick, the Bois d'Arc 

limestone, 90 feet thick, and the Woodford 

chert, about 650 feet thick, all of Devonian 

age. 

The aggregate thickness of pre-Carboniferous 

formations in the Arbuckle l\1ountains is 6,900 

to 10,250 feet, and although in the Wichita 

Mountains only 4,500 to 6,600 feet of pre-· 

Carboniferous rocks are expos~d, it is possible 

that several thousand feet more of these beds 

are present but are concealed by the mantle of 

Permian formations that unconformably overlies them. Whether this is so or not, however, 

it is evident that the pre-Carboniferous beds 

are very much thicker in southern Oklahoma 

than in the· Llano-Burnet area in central Texas, 

sa Paige, Sidney, U. S. GMI. Survey Geol. Atlas, Llano-Burnet folio 

(No. 183), 1912. 

34 TafT, J. A., Preliminary report on the geology of the Arbuckle and 

·wichita mow1tains, in Indian Territory and Oklahoma: U. S. Geol. 

Survey Prof. Paper 31, 1904. 
26 HELIUM-BEARING N-A-TURAL GAS. 

where they have a Inaximum thickness of 

only 1,600 feet. Beneath the northern part of 

the helium-bearing district, therefore, these 

formations are probably from 3,000 to 6,000 

feet thick, unless, as in Kansas, there are irregularities in the pre-Cambrian floor that cut 

out some of the basal beds. This possibility 

is disregarded in the representation of the 

structure of the pre-Carboniferous rocks and 

their thickening to the north in the structure 

section on Plate II. 

The Cambrian and Ordovician limestone in 

the Llano-Burnet area is unconformably overlain by the Marble Falls limestone, of Pennsylvanian age. Just north of that area, however, 

the Marble Falls is separated from the Ordovician by limestone and shales believed to be of 

upper Mississippian age. The lower part of 

these Mississippian beds has been called 

''Lower Bend shale.'' 35 The Marble Falls 

limestone is overlain by the Smithwick shale, 

and the Smithwick is unconformably overlain 

by the Strawn formation. Because of the 

unconformities at the base of the so-called 

"Lower Bend shale," at the base of the Marble 

Falls, and at the top of the Smithwick, the combined thickness of these formations varies considerably, though in general it increases somewhat toward the north. On.the outcrop, where 

the Mississippian is absent, the Smithwick and 

Marble Falls together are 550 to 850 feet thick, 

but in the Ranger district the combined thickness of the three formations is almost 1,000 

feet. 36 The highly prolific oil sands encountered 

at depths of 3,000 to 3,500 feet in the Ranger, 

Breckenridge, Caddo, and neighboring pools 

occur in the "-Bend series," mainly in the 

Marble Falls limestone, and chiefly in its upper 

portion, and one or two wells have also found 

oil and gas in the overlying Smithwick shale. 

The Smithwick shale is overlain by the 

Strawn, Canyon, and Cisco formations, of 

Pennsylvanian age, which consist chiefly of 

sandstone and shale with some coal. Cummins,37 Drake/8 Hill,39. and others have shown 

that the Strawn formation is about 2,500 feet 

thick in the neighborhood of Strawn, Palo 

Pinto County, and in some places reaches a 

35 Udden, J. S., Review of geology of Texas: Texas Univ. Bull. 44, 

pp. 41, 42, 1916. 

36 Matteson, ""'V. G., A review of development in the new central Texas 

oil fields during 1918: Econ. Geology, vol. 14, p. 95, 1919. 

37 Cummins, W. F., Texas Geol. Survey Second Ann. Rept., 1891. 

38 Drake, N. F., Texas Geol. Survey Fourth Ann. Rept., 1893. l 39 Hill, R. T., U.S. Geol. Survey Twenty-first Ann. Rept., pt. 7,1901. 

thickness qf 4,000 feet. Its thickness in north 

Texas, however, as .measured by Gordon, 40 is 

only 1,900 feet. The Strawn consists chiefly 

of blue to black shale and reddish sandstone. 

It includes several workable coal beds and the 

oil sands that are productive chiefly in Palo 

Pinto County. The Strawn is overlain by the · 

Canyon formation, whi~h is 800 to 1,100 feet 

thick and which consists chiefly of shale and 

limestone in the Ranger region but becomes 

more sandy toward the north. Matteson 41 

has called attention to the pronounced unconformity between the Str~wn and Canyon formations in the Ranger region and in north-central 

Texas generally. The Canyon is overlain by 

the Cisco formation, which is 800 to 1,000 feet 

thick and which consists chiefly of red to blue 

shale and reddish sandstone. The heliumbearing gas of the Petrolia field and much of the 

oil of the Electra and Burkburnett fields probably occur in the Cisco formation. 

In northern and central Texas sedimentation 

was not interrupted at the end of the Pennsylvanian epoch, and the great series of Permian: 

beds rests conformably on the Pennsylvanian 

strata. The lowest Permian formation, the 

Wichita, is lithologically very siinilar to the 

Cisco formation and yields the shallow oil of the 

Petrolia, Electra, and Burkburnett fields. . The 

Wichita, which is 1,000 to 1,200 feet thick, is 

overlain by the Clear Fork and Double Mountain formations, which have a combined thickness of almost 4,000 feet, but these beds crop 

out west of the area under discussion and need 

not be considered here. 

The conditions of sedimentation in' southern 

Oklahoma differed from those in Texas in 

several particulars. As already noted, the 

thickness of the pre-Carboniferous formations in 

southern Oklahoma is very much greater than 

in Texas, and in the Arbuckle Mountains, at 

least, sedimentation continued without notable 

interruption through Mississippian time. At 

the end of the Mississippian, however, the 

Arbuckle region was uplifted into land, and so it 

remained during a great part of Pennsylvanian 

time. During this epoch only a comparatively 

small thickness of strata was deposited in the 

Arbuckle region proper, though in central and 

northern Texas the thick series of beds repre40 Gordon, C. H., Geology and underground waters of the Wichita 

region, north-central Texas: U. S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 

317, p. 14, 1913. 

41 Matteson, W. G., Econ. Geology, vol. 14, p. 105, 1919. 

• 
• 

• 

DISTRIBUTION AND RELATIONS OF HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 27 

sented by the :Marble Falls, Smith~vick, Strawn, has been tested for helium, and the results are 

Canyon, and Cisco formations was laid down. shown on Plate III. It will be noted that the 

Moreover, near the end of the Pennsylvanian only field producing gas carrying more than 0.5 

the sediments of the Arbuckle region were again per cent of helium is ~etrolia, that gas carrying 

folded and elevated into land, and a great more than 0.25 per cent is found throughout a 

hiatus occurred between the deposition of the large area south of Petrolia, and that all the 

highest Pennsylvanian formations and that of southern Oklahoma fields yield gas very poor 

the lowest Permian. During the same period in helium. As the fields in this region are fewer 

seclin1entation in north Texas, resulting in the than those in the Mid-Continent region and 

forn1ation of the Wichita and Cisco beds, was are also more widely separated, it is even more 

practically continuous; hence in south~rn Okla- difficult to draw definite conclusions as to the 

hon1a part or all of the Wichita and Cisco and factors covering the distribution of tlie helium, 

perhaps still lower beds are absent. The exact though its broader stratigraphic relations are 

conditions can not be determined, except in the plain. The rich Petrolia gas occurs in the 

immediate vicinity of the Arbuclde uplift, for upper Pennsylvanian, and the poorer gases to 

elsewhere all the older rocks are unconformably the south in the lo·wer Pennsylvanian. 'l_'he 

overlain by a blitnket of Permian beds; hence at Permian gases of southern Oklahoma and the 

present it is impossible to correlate the oil and basal Pennsylvanian and Mississippian gases of 

gas zones of southern Oldahoma with those of the Ranger region are poor in helium, and the 

northern 1'exas. · Cretaceous gases of east-central Texas a.nd 

That the tectonic relations of the north Texas Louisiana contain only traces of helium or 

region are com.plex and difficult to decipher is none at all. . The stratigraphic distribution of 

clear fron1 the foregoing discussion. It is the helium in this region is thus similar to that 

evident that the pre-Carboniferous rocks form in the Mid-Continent district; the richest gases 

a sort of basin between the Llano-Burnet uplift are. of upper and middle Pennsylvanian age, 

on the south and the Wichita and Arbuckle and both older and younger gases are poor. 

uplifts on the north. Although there is no The Petrolia gas, which carries almost 1 per 

n1arkecl discordance in clip in the Llano-Burnet cent of helium, is derived from a zone of sands 

region between these formations and the Car- that lies at a depth of 1,500 to 1,750 feet and 

boniferous, farther north the upper surface of is believed to occur in the Cisco formation. 

the pre-Carboniferous is very irregular ·and its The gas sands are lenticular and can not be 

structure may be very different from that of traced for any great distance, but there appear 

the Carboniferous formations. In the Llano- to be two main producing groups of sands, o1ie 

Burnet .district the lower P01msylvanian beds lying at an average depth of about 1,550 feet 

have a general northerly dip, and in the and the other at about 1,700 feet. A less 

Ranger region they are known to dip also to definite zone occurs between the two, and 

the east and west, forming a broad, gentle "stray" sands are also reported in many wells. 

anticline whose northward-plunging axis is a Samples collected from individual wells show 

radial extension of the Llano-Burnet uplift. a range in helium from 0.65 to 1.18 per cent, 

The Strawn and higher formations dip in and the gas from the uppermost group of sands 

general to the northwest, their structure is apparently slightly richer than that from 

being controlled in part by the Llano-Burnet the others. As all these groups, however, lie in 

uplift and in part by their position on the one general zone, and as no gas is produced 

eastern rim of the great Carboniferous basin ·from other' .zones in the field, it is impossible to 

of west 'I'e..xas. The Permian beds in Texas determine how far the helium content of the 

are conformable to the Pennsylvanian, but in ·gas is related to its depth or its exact stratisouthern Oldahoma they are unconformable graphic position. 

and conceal the complicated structure which The Petrolia field is the only locality in which 

undoubtedly characterizes. all the older for- gas is produced from sands that are almost cermations in that· area. tainly in the Cisco formation. In the Electra 

DISTRIBUTION OF THE HELIUM. 

The gas produced in all the fields of northern 

and central Texas and southern Oklahoma 

and Burkburnett fields, a short distance west 

of Petrolia, oii is obtained from sands i.I1 the 

Cisco and in the overlying Permian, but no 

commercial supplies of gas have been fo~1nd. 

.. 
28 ·HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 

In the southern part of Throckmorton County sumably very poor in helium. The gases of the 

several wells found small supplies of gas that Ada, Cement, Fox, and Keyes fields, which all 

may occur in the Cisco, and two samples of this contain less than 0.1 per cent of helium, occur 

gas showed 0.73 and 0.22 per cent of helium. ·below the base of the Permian, but their posiThese samples were not collected by the writer, tion in "the Pennsylvanian is not known. As 

however, and as there is considerable doubt as already pointed out, there is a pronounced unto the source of the richer sample, little signifi- conformity between the Pennsylvanian and the 

cance. can be attached to it. · Permian in the Arbuckle area, and the upper 

Practically all the gas and oil produced in the Pennsylvanian strata may be absent throughRanger region are derived· from the Strawn, out considerable districts in southern Oklahoma. 

Smithwick, and Marble Falls formations. The The gase~ of these fields are therefore probably· 

.·gas of tlie Palo Pinto County fields occurs not equivalent to the Petrolia gas and may even 

mostly in the lower part of the Strawn forma- correspond more nearly to the Strawn gas of 

tion, and five samples of it ranged in helium . the Ranger ·region. 

content from 0.17 to 0.32 per cent. The gases From the foregoing description it appears 

. of the Moran and Breckenridge fields occur that the chief factor controlling the distribuhigher up in the Strawn and carry 0.27 to 0.44 tion of helium- in the Texas region is strati-:-

per cent of.helium. The gas of the Caddo and graphic position. The only gas rich in helium 

Ranger fields, which occurs in beds beneath the occurS in beds which probably belong to the 

Strawn formation, carries less than 0.1 per cent. Cisco, and no gases poor in helium are known 

The two gases sampled in Coleman County, to occur in that formation; hence it appears 

which occur in the upper Strawn or lower Can- safe to predict that whatever new supplies of 

yon beds, carry less than 0.25 per cent. The gas may be discovered in the Cisco will be of 

Brown ·county gases occur in the Strawn for- valu~ for their helium content. Furthermore, 

mation and carry 0.35 to 0.38 per cent. practically all the Canyon ·and Strawn gases 

Four samples of Cretaceous gas from the contain from 0.1 to 0.4 per cent of helium, 

Mexia and Groesbeck fields, southeast of the whereas gases from beds below the Strawn and 

Ranger region, contained only traces of helium, also from all strata above the Cisco-Permian, 

and gas from the Thrall field, which occurs in a Cretaceous, and Tertiary-are very poor in hebody of porous serpentine in Cretaceous rocks, lium or contain none at all. The possible area 

contains none. Four samples of Cretaceous in Texas in which gas carrying more than 0.5 

gas from the northern Louisiana fields contained per cent of helium occurs may therefore be confrom 0.03 to 0.07 per cent of helium. Tertiary sidered broadly as coincident with that in which 

gases from the Jennings ranch, in Zapata the base of the Cisco formation lies at depths 

County, southern Texas, and from the Jennings between 300 and perhaps 3,000 feet;. and the 

and Houma fields, southern Louisiana; con- area of gas carrying more than 0.25 .per cent 

tained only traces of helium. includes all that in which any part of the Cisco, 

The low helium content of the gases .of the Canyon, and Strawn formations lies at similar 

southern Oklahoma fields, which are located depths. It is of course improbable that sup- . 

not far from Petrolia and. in a district in which plies of gas will be discovered throughout so 

the. surface geology is siniilar, is at first sight large an area, however, and the helium-bearing 

surprising, but it can probably be accounted district as shown in Plate III is that in which 

for on stratigraphic· grounds. The gas 'of the present developments indicate that gas is most 

Loco field, 42 which contains about 0.15 per cent likely to be discovered. 

of helium, and that of the Duncan field, 43 wblich 

carries only a trace, occur in Permian strata, as 

does also the gas at Lawton, 44 which contains 

only 2 per cent of nitrogen and is therefore pre42 Wcgemann, C. H., The Loco gas field, Stephens and Jefferson c::mnties, Okla.: U. S. Geol. Survey Bull. 621, p. 31, 1916. 

4B Wegemann, C. H., The Duncan gas field, Stephens County, Okla.: 

Idem. p. 43. 

H Wcgemann, C. H., and Rowen; R. W., The Lawton oil and gas field, 

Okla.: Idem, p. 71. 

APPALACHIAN REGION. 

LOCATION. 

The Appalachian oil and gas region lies 

chiefly in the eastern parts of Ohio and Kentucky and the western parts of New York, 

Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Little attep.tion has been paid to the helium content 

of the gases that occur throughout this great 

• 
• 

• 

DISTRIBUTION AND RELATIONS OF HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 29 

area, but so far as known gas carrying more 

than 0.25 per cent of helium occurs only in 

one smull district. rhis district is in Vinton 

and I-Iocking counti~s, Ohio, near the western 

edge of the Appalachian petroleum region. 

'"rhe present extent of the Vinton and Hocking county fields is shown in generalized form 

on figm·e 5. It is possible that fut·m·e development will extend these fields to the- south, 

though for geologic reasons there Is little 

GEOLOGY. 

In the Ohio area helium-hearing gas occurs 

chiefly in the Clinton sand, of Silurian .age, 

though a small quantity of equally rich gas is 

found in a s~nd at about the horizon of the 

Berea, which is at or near the base of the 

Mississippian series. Both the Clinton and 

the Berea sands yield large volumes of gas, 

the Clinton being productive in a belt extending northward fro~ Vinton County through 

EXPLANATION 

Pem15ylvru.llari 

~ 

~ 

Mis-sissippian 

-

~ Devonian 

and Silw-ian 

-

Ordovician 

and Cambrian 

ITIIITJJ 

Pre-Camb~ian 

m 

Gas fields, producin~ £:om the Clinton sand; eas lmown to carry iibout 0.35 ~ ofhelimu shown by solid black 

ZS&==it::O =· =::==:=;;;;;;;;~50!::::=~===:=~100 MilES 

FIGURE 5.-Map showing the geologic relations of the Ohio area of helium-b.oaring gas 

prospect of important extensions to the east or 

west. The northern boundary of this heliumbearing area can be determined only by fm·ther 

sampling and analysis, but it is thought to lie 

not far north of the fields indicated on the map. 

As the conditions controlling the distribution 

of helium in the Appalachian region are not 

well understood, however, it is possible that 

other helium-bearing gas fields will be discovered in entirely different parts of the region. 

central Ohio to Cleveland and the Berea in 

many fields in eastern Ohio and in Pennsylvania and West Virginia; but only in Vinton 

and Hocking counties, Ohio, is the gas produced from these sands known to contain 

helium. 

The Appalachian pet~oleum region is in the 

great spoon-shaped structtu·al basin which 

lies between the Cincinnati anticline on the 

west and the Appalachian :Mountain folds Oil 
30 HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 

the east and southeast. The general geology 

of the region is well brought out in figure 5. 

The highest part of the broad, gentle Cincinnati anticline is defined by the outcrop of 

Ordovician rocks, and this is _surrounded by 

~ 0 

~ z 

0 

co 

a: 

"' u 

z 

<1: 

z 

0 

~ Q 

~ 

u 

> 0 

Q 

a: 

0 

ta 

~ 

·i 

~ 

~ Ji!. 

~ 

~ 

1 

-~ 

-~ 

~ ~ 

FORMATION 

ALLEGHANY 

FORMATION 

POTTSVILLE 

FORMATION 

LOGAN FORMATION 

BLACK HAND 

FORMATION 

OHIO SHALE 

"CLINTON" FORMATION 

"MEDINA" SI:IALE 

EDEN SHALE 

TRENTON (?)AND OLDER 

LIMESTONES 

THICKSECTION NESS IN FEET 

CHARACTER OF 

FORMATION 

Shale and s~ndstone, with coal 

Shale and massive sand- stones, with coal 

Shale and sandstone 

Yellowdto red sandstone an conglomerate 

Bluish-black bituminous shale 

Thin-bedded compact dolomite, with gypsum near base 

Limestone and shale 

Red and gray shale 

Bluish,green1sh-brown,and Rray· calcareous shale, with thin lay- ers of limestone 

Dark-bluish to black shale 

Light-grpy to drab impure limestone 

White and gray calcareous sandstone· 

FIGURE 6.-Colu.mnar section of rocks exposed and encountered i.ri. drilling in south-central Ohio. Based on data given by Phalen, vy. C., U.S. 

Geol. Survey Geol. Atlas, Kenova folio (No. 184), 1913, and by Hubbard, G. D., Stauffer, C. R., Bownocker, J. A., Prosser, C. S., and 

Cumings, E. R., idem, Columbus folio (No. 197), 1915. 

the Silurian, Devonian, Mississippian, and 

Pennsylvanian strata that are exposed farther 

down on the flanks of ~he anticline. The area 

in which Permian formations constitute the 

surface rocks marks the deepest part of the 

basin, and east of this locality the general dip 

of the strata is west and northwest. The dip 

increases sharply in the mountains, where the 

Mississippian and older Paleozoic formations, 

thrown into a series of closely compressed 

folds, ·are again exposed. Pre-Cambrian rocks 

crop out still farther east, in the extreme 

southeast corner of the area mapped. 

The formations exposed and encountered in 

drilling in the Vinton County area range in age 

from Pennsy1vanian to Ordovician, as shown 

iri the columnar section (fig. 6). The surface 

formations are the Allegheny and Pottsville, of 

lower Pennsylvanian age, which consist of 

shale and sandstone with numerous coal beds. 

In Ohio the top of the Mississippian is marked 

by a thin limestone, but the series consists 

chiefly of shale and sandstone formations 

having an aggregate thickness of about 300 to 

800 feet. The Berea sandstone, which lies at 

or near the base of the Mississippian, is an 

important reservoir of oil and gas throughout 

the Appalachian region. The upper and middle parts of the underlying Devonian system 

consist chiefly of dark shale, but the lower 

part is composed of two limestone formations. 

In the Columbus area, about 60 miles north of 

Vinton: County, the Devonian has an aggregate thickness of 825 to 915 feet. The upper 

part of the Silurian system consists of limestone and dolomite formations about 450 feet 

thick, and the lower part, about 270 feet 

thick, is represented by a shale supposed to be 

the Osgood shale, the "Clinton" formation, and 

an underlying shale that represents a part of 

the Medina group. 

The "Clinton" formation 45 is of special 

interest because it includes the Clinton sand, 

the chief reservoir of natural gas in central 

Ohio and of helium-bearing gas in the Vinton 

County field. The ".Clinton" formation crops 

out on the east flank of the Cincinnati anticline 

45 When gas was first discovered in these rocks at Lancaster the formation was thought to be tho equivalent of tho Clinton of Now York. 

Later studios have shown that the beds lie below the true Clinton and 

probably belong to tho :Medina group. As the term Clinton sand is now 

too well established among the drillers to be supplanted, and as no other 

name for the formation that contains this sand has yet been generally 

accepted, the term "Clinton" formation is retained in this paper in 

conformity with current usage. 

•· 
• 

• 

DISTIUBUTION AND RELATIONS OF HELIUM-BEAiUNQ- NATURAL GAS. 31 

west of Vinton County and, dipping to the east, 

attains a depth of 2,000 to 2,600 feet in the 

Vinton County field. East of that locality 

the depth of the "Clinton" increases sharply, 

owing not only to the normal dip but to the 

great thickening of the Devonian shale above 

it, and in western· Pennsyhrania and West 

Virginia the formation lies at depths greater 

than 7,000 feet. The Clinton sand itself does 

not appear in the surface exposures of the 

''Olin ton'' formation, and drill records indicate 

that it feathers out and. merges into shale 

along the western edges of the Vinton Co'ln1ty 

field and of the other Clinton sand fields to the 

north. This thinning out of the sand has 

undoubtedly been the chief factor in the 

accumulation of natlu·al gas throughout the 

belt, and most of the Clinton sand fields have 

n1onoclinal rather than true anticlinal structure. 

No wells in the Vinton County district have 

penetrated far below the Clinton sand, but the 

records of deep wells near Columbus and near 'V averly furnish information as to the character 

and thickness of the Ordovician rocks. As 

show11 in figuTe 6, the data for the lower part 

of which are derived from the record of a well 

near Coll.unbus, t~e "Clinton" is underlain by 

n1ore than 1,800 feet of Ordovician beds. The 

upper 1,000 feet of the Ordovician consists 

chiefly of shale, at the base of which lies 4 7 5 

feet of limestone, which has been classified as 

Trenton ( ~) and older. · 

Tlus is underlain by 316 feet of white sandstone that is believed to represent the St. Peter. 

The record of the well at Waverly, however, 

which is only 20 miles west of the Vinton 

County area, shows only 17 5 feet of sandston~ 

at the horizon of the St. Peter and 320 feet of 

white dolo1nitic limestone below. According 

to Bassler's interpretation 46 of this record, the 

white li1nestone is of Lower Ordovician age. 

Drillings obtnined near the botton1 of this well 

included a few fi·agments of a basic igneous 

rock which Bassler regards as probably representing the pre-Cambrian basement. If this 

view is correct tho Clinton sand at Waverly is 

underlain by about 2,500 feet of sedimentary 

rocks, and in Vinton County the thickness of 

pre-" Clinton" sediments is presumably about 

the sa1ne . 

•O Bassler, n.. S., Stmtigraphy of a deep well at Waverly, Ohio: Am . 

Jour. Sci., •1th sor., vol. 31, p. 19, 1911. 

The only known .outcrop of igneous rock in 

this region is near Willard, Ky., about 85 miles 

south of Vinton County. The rock is kimberlite, a variety of peridotite, and appears to 

represent a dike that was intruded in postAllegheny time. 

DISTRIBUTION OF THE HELIUM. 

. The occuiTence of helium in the Vinton 

County area was investigated by George B. 

Richardson, of the Geological Survey, from 

whose reports the following information has 

been taken. (Seep. 90). 

By far the largest supply of helium-bearing 

gas is found in the Clinton sand, which ranges 

in depth from about 2,050 to 2,450 feet and 

dips to the east at a fairly regular rate of 60 to 

70 feet to the mile. In the eastern part of the 

field the sand is 20 feet or more thick, but it 

thins toward the west and feathers out in the 

western part of the county. The Clinton gas 

carries from 0.20 to 0.48 per cent of helium, 

though 14 out of the 18 samples collected 

showed between 0.34 and 0.44 per cent. The 

slight variation in helium content appears to be 

irregular, and no evidence of segregation, either 

geographic, stratigraphic, or structural, could 

be detected. Samples collected on the· east . 

side of the field showed as much helium as those 

on the west side, where the sand lies 350 feet 

higher. 

A fact of considerable scientific interest 

is the occurrence of .natural gas carrying practically the same proportion of helium-0.39 per 

cent-in a sand at or near the horizon of the· 

Berea, which lies about 1,850 feet stratigraphically above the Clinton sand. As pointed out 

in the foregoing pages, in the ~lid-Continent 

region the gas richest in helium occuTs characteristically at shallow depth, and in both the 

Mid-Continent and the north Texas fields the 

distribution of the helium-rich gases is distinctly related to the stratigraphy. ')'he fact 

that the Clinton gas of Vinton County carries 

as much helium as the Berea gas, which is far 

younger and which occurs relatively close to 

the surface, is therefore surprising. The occurrence of helium in the Berea gas is of little 

practical importance in Vinton County, however, for the production from this sand is 

small, whereas that from the Clinton a1nounts 

. to about 65,000,000 cubic feet a day. 
_32 HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 

ROCKY MOUNTAIN AND PACIFIC COAST 

REGIONS .. 

During the summer of 1918 practically all 

commercial supplies of natural gas in Wyoming, the Dakotas, Montana, Washington, and 

California were sampled, the Wyoming samples 

being collected by C. A. Fisher, consulting 

geologist, of Denver, Colo., and the remainder 

by A. W. Ambrose and E. W. Wagy, of the 

Bureau of Mines. The gas at Havre, Mont., 

proved to contain 0.27 per cent of helium; that 

at Pine Mountain, Wyo., about 0.26 per cent; 

and that at Fillmore, Calif., 0.31 per cent; .but 

none· of the other gases sampled contained 

more than 0.15 per cent, and the great majority contained only traces of helium or none at 

all. With the exception of the gas from Pine 

Mountain, Wyo., which is derived from a Carboniferous formation, practically all . the gas 

produced in the Rocky Mountain and Pacific 

coast region is of Cretaceous or Tertiary age. 

This fact, taken in connection with the very 

low helium content of the Cretaceous and Tertiary gases of Texas and Louisiana, indicates 

that the prospects of discovering helium-rich 

gas in Cr.etaceous and Tertiary strata are poor. 

The small IIavre gas field in north-central 

Montana is in the southeastern part of Hill 

County and lies only about 30 riles south of 

the international boundary. The sample of 

I-Iavre gas analyzed was collected from a well 

at the west end of the town and is presumably 

representative of the gas produced by the two 

. or three other wells that have been drilled in 

the vicinity. The gas analyzed occurs at a 

depth of 1,200 to 1,300 feet, and according to 

Stebinger 47 it is derived from the Eagle sandstone, which is the basal formation of the Montana group, of Upper Cretaceous age. .The 

predominant surface rock in the vicinity of 

Havre is. the Judith River formation, one of 

the higher formations in the same ·group. 

The Eagle is underlain by the Colorado shale, 

1,500 to 1, 700 feet thick, and the Colorado in 

turn by the Kootenai formation, of Lower 

Cretaceous age, 400 to 600 feet thick. On the 

east flank of the Bearpaw .'.'Mountains, about 

30 miles southeast of Havre; the l(ootenai is 

underlain by older Mesozoic and Paleozoic 

formations, but owing to the disturbed condition of the strata in this region it is impossible to determ.i.lle the thickness of the sediments which in the Havre district separate the 

Eagle sandstone from the b~sen1ent rocks. 

The north end of the main igneous n1ass of th.e 

Bearpaw Mountains lies only about 10 miles 

south of Havre, and small isolated exposures 

of intrusive rock appear within 2 or 3 :miles of 

the gas wells. 

Considerable. volumes of natural gas are 

produced in Canada, and during the war the 

helium content of Canadian gases was.investigated. No report of this investigation has 

been published, but it is understood that no 

gases containing more than about 0.33 per 

cent of helium were discovered. 

.The gas produced in the Pine Mountain 

dome, 25 miles northwest of Casper, in central 

Wyoming, is derived from a Carboniferous 

formation. According to Hares 48 the producing formation is probably the Tensleep 

sandstone, of . Pennsylvanian age, though C. 

A. Fisher, who collected the samples, states 

that the gas may be derived from the overlying Embar group, which is of Pennsylvanian, 

Permian, and Lower Triassic age. The gas 

occurs at a depth of 1,668 feet. Unfortunately, the sample was lost during analysis, and 

the 4elium content was not e~actly determined,' 

but C. W. Seibel, who made the analysis, 

regards 0.26 per cent as a close approximation .. 

The most interesting feature of the Pine 

Mountain gas is the fact that it contains more 

than twice as much helium as any of the other 

Wyoming gases tested, all of which are of 

Cretaceous age. A sample from the Frontier 

sand (Colorado group of Upper Cretaceous 

age), in the Buffalo Basin field, showed 0.07 

per cent, and a sample from the Cloverly 

formation (Lower Cretaceous), in the Oregon 

Basin field, showed 0.09 per cent. Nine 

samples 'fron1 these and other Cretaceous beds 

contained only a trace of helium, and three 

samples contained none. Hence, in Wyoming, 

as in the Mid-Continent region, the gas richest 

in helium appears to be of Carboniferous age. 

The shallow gas at Fillmore, Ventura 

County, Calif., is remarkable as the only one 

of the 56 California gases sampled that contains more than 0.15 per cent of helium. ·This 

g11s, which contains 0.31 per cent of helium, 

occu:r:s at a depth of about 600 feet, and 

t7 Stebinger, Eugene, Possibilities of oil and gas in north-central Mon- •s Hares, C. J., Anticlines in central Wyoming: U. S. Geol. Survey 

tana: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 641, pp. 49-92,1917. Bull. 641, pp. 233-280, 191i. 

• 
• 

• 

DISTRIBUTION AND RELATIONS OF HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 33 

according to Eldridge 49 it is probably derived 

fr01n the Sespe formation, of Oligocene(~) age. 

A sun1ple from 11 more produc-tive gas sand in 

the same field, lying ut an average depth of 

2,800 feet, showed, however, only 0.06 per 

cent of helium. A !?ample from the Santa 

Ma:riu field, also in southern California, contained 0.13 per cent of helium, and one from 

the Coalinga field in Fresno County contained 

0.11 per cent, but the remaining 51 samples 

collected from these and other fields contained 

only traces of helium at the most. (See 

pp. 96-97.) 

CANADA. 

A sample. of the gas produced in the Bow 

Island field, near Lethbridge, . Alberta, about 

125 miles .northwest of Havre, Mont.,. was 

collected in August, 1918, by A. W. Ambrose 

and wa.." found to contain 0.30 per cent of 

helium. At that time there were 26 gas wells 

in the Bow Island field having an average 

depth of 1,900 feet and a coml:>ined open flow 

of 15,000,000 cubic feet a day. This gas is 

supposed to occur in the lower part of the 

Colorado shale, or about 1,200 to 1,500 feet 

below the producing sand at Havre. The fact 

that both these gases carry about the same 

proportion of helium suggests that similar gas 

inay be found elsewhere in this region in 

Cretaceous formutioris. 

EUROPE. 

Systematic searches for helium - bearing 

natural gas in European countries were not 

made until after the outbreak of the European 

war, and the results of these explorations have 

not been published. Prior to the discovery of 

helium in Kansas natural gas by Cady and 

:McFarland, however, a number of Italian 

gases of various types had .been tested by 

N asini, Anderlini, and Salvadori, 50 and faint 

· traces o.f helium had been detected in the 

natural gas of Bagni della Porretta, on the 

northern flank of the Apennines. (See p. ,?1.) 

The same investigators in 1906 identified helium 

in the natural gas of Salsomaggiore, 51 .in 

northern Italy, and since that time the helium 

•ol~ldrldgo, G.·~., and Arnold, Ralph, The Santa Clara Valley, 

Puente Hills, and Los Angelos oil districts, southern California: U. S. 

Qool. Survey Bull. 300, p. 76, 1907. 

fiONasini, R., Anderlini, F., and Salvadori, R., Ricorcho sullo cmanazioni torrostre itallane: Gazz. chim. ital., vol. 28, pp. 81-153, 1898. 

fil Idem, vol. 36, pt. I, p. 429, 1906., 

in a numher of other European gases has been 

quantitatively determined by several chemists. 

Unfortunately the memoirs in which these 

analyses were published give little information 

as· to the geologic occurrence of the gases, but 

the data given have some interest in connection with the foregoing discussion ·of the 

occurrence of helium in North American gases. 

Helium was found in the gas produced at 

N euengamme, near Hamburg, by Voller and 

Walter 52 in 1910. They found this gas, which· 

occurs in Tertiary strata at a depth of 810 

·feet, to contain 5.6 per cent of nitrogen, 0.05 

per cent of argon, and 0.01 to 0.02 per cent of 

helium. A later analysis of the same gas by 

Czak6 53 showed 3.32 per cent of nitrogen and 

0.0141 per cent of helium, and a test ·by 

Sieveking and LautenschHiger 54 showed 0.025 

per cent of helium. · The last-named authors 

also examined gas from Transylvania, the 

most productive gas region in Europe, and 

found it to contain 0.007 per cent of helium. 

Gas from Kissarmas, in the same region, was 

found by Czak6 to carry 0.0014 per cent of 

helium. Czak6 found less than 0.01 per cent 

of helium in the gas produced at W els, Austria, 

and in the shallow gas of the Alsatian field 

but reported 0.38 per cent in a small flow of 

gas from a deep test hole near Pechelbronn, 

Alsace. This gas is derived from a d~pth of 

about 3,280 feet, and the occurrence of a gas 

comparatively rich in helium at so great a 

depth is somewhat slirprising in view of the 

apparent tendency of helium in the North 

American fields to collect at shallow depth. 

All the other European gases analyzed are 

believed to be of Tertiary age, however, 

whereas the deep Pechelbronn gas is said to 

issue from the Urformation, which in this 

locality is presumably of early Mesozoic age. 

.Czak6 determined the radioactivity of the 

gases which he tested for helium and found 

the deep Pechelbronn gas to be very much 

more active than the gases poor in. helium. 

He also examined a number of other natural 

fi2 Voller, A., and Walter, B,, Uber don Helium und Argongehalt 

des Erdgases von Neuengammo: Hamburgischen wissenschaftlichen 

Anstiuton Jahrb., Band 28, Heft 5, 1910. · 

fiB Czak6, Emerich, Ubor Heliumgehalt und Radioaktivitii.t .von 

Erdgason: Zoitschr. anorg. Chemic, vol. 82, pp. 261, 268, 1913; Boitrii.go 

iur Kenntnis naturlicher Gasausstromungen, Dissertation, Grossherzoglich technischen Hochschule zu Karlsruhe, 1913 . 

M Sieveking, H., and Lautenschliiger, L., Uber Helium i_n Thorrpalquellen und Erdgasen: Physikal. Zeitschr., vol. 13, p. 1043, 1912. 
34 HELIUM -BEARING NATURAL GAS. 

gases for radioactivity and foun:d them to be 

about as active as the gases known to contain 

only very small amounts of helium. His 

results are given in the following table: 

to point ·out the factors that seem to influence. 

its distribution in different regions. At the 

present time only general conclusions can be 

drawn, however, for two , neighboring wells 

Helium content and radioactivity of some European natu,:al gases. 

Source. D th II Flow of gas per . . . ep of we day (thousand RadiOactivity Helium (per cent). . Nitrogen (per Date sampled. (feet). cubic feet). (volt-stunden). cent). 

N euengamme, near Hamburg, Germany ........................... . 810 17,657 ± 580 0.0141 3. 32 December, 

1911. 

Wels, upper Austria: 

Scharf well. ___ . ____ ...... : __ .. . . 1, 246 .0089 September, 1912 .. Krankenhaus welL _____ .. __ . . . . 820-1, 312 .. ___ ...... . 

165 

290 

700 

Do. 

Herdfabrik well .... _.......... 590-754 39± Do, 

Pechelbronn, Alsace: 

_Well 220 .. __ .. _. _ ... _ ... _. _ . . . . 901 . _ .... _. _ .. . 300 

300 

500 

. 0063 6. 36 April, 1912. 

Well126l. __ .... _. _. _ ... _...... 469 .... __ . __ .. . -----------· -----------· Do. Old well. .... _____ ._ .. _ ........ ____ ........ _ ... ___ ..... _ ------------------------ Do. Deep well ... _. _. _ .. __ .. ___ . . . . . 3, 280 ± ........ _ .. . 

Kissarmas, Hungary: 

17,000 . 38 46. 55 Do. 

· Well II_ ..... ___ .. _ . _ . . . . . . . . . . 990 30, 371 · 70 

50 

120 

. 0014 . 73 September, 

1912. 

Well XII .................. ---. Well XIII. ............... _ ... . Well X ... ___ .............. _ .. . 

Bazna,·Hungary, well XIV ........ . 

738 

354 

223 

459 

335 

7,240 

2,472 

1, 942 

1,942 

85 

125 

140 

280 

uo 

Do. 

Do. 

Do.· 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Medgzes, Hungary, well XXII .... ~ . Marosugra~,..,. H u;ngary, well V. _ . _ ... . Campina, .ttumania, well103 ....... . 4,165 

1,580 

All the European natural gases that have 

bee:n tested. are t~erefore very poor in helium 

wi.th the exception of the small flow from the 

deep well at Pechelbronn; and if, as Czak6 

apparently believes, the radioactivity of a gas 

is~a rough index of its heliun1 content it is 

evident that all the other gases 'cited in the 

foregoing table are also poor ·in helium. As 

already pointed out, the Tertiary and Cretaceous gases of the United States are, with two 

exceptions, very poor in helium, an9. as practically all the European natural gases are of 

Tertiary age their low helium content is not 

surprising. It would of course be unwise to 

infer that. all Cretaceous and Tertiary gases the 

world over are poor in helium, though this 

conclusion is· suggested l;>oth by the scanty 

available evidence relating to helium in European gases, and by the abundant evidence regarding the distribution . of helium in the 

United States. 

SUMMARY OF FACTORS INFLUENCING THE 

' DISTRmUT.JON OF HELIUM. 

· In _the foregoing pages the writer has endeavored to describe broadly the geologic 

occurrence _of heliu,m-bearing natural gas and 

635 

127± 

producing from the f?ame horizon may yield 

gases differing in helium content, and until 

the cause of such local variations is understood 

it is unwise to· attach much significance to 

small differences in the helium content of 

gases produced in widely separated fields. 

· In the Mid-Continent region, which contains 

the largest known accumulations of heliumbearing gas, the richest gas occurs at comparatively shallow depths in upper and middle Pennsylvanian strata. In the Texas region, which is the next most prolific, the 

stratigraphic distribution of the gas is the 

same, and there· is reason to believe also that 

rich gas wjll not be found· at great depth. In 

Ohio, however, a large volume of gas carrying 

0.33 ·per cent of helium is found in Silurian 

strata at a depth of more than 2,000 feet, and 

a small volume of equally rich gas occurs in 

Mississippian beds about 1,800 feet stratigraphically higher. Gas· of Cretaceous and 

Tertiary age is usually very poor in helium, 

though in two localities such gas has been 

found to contain slightly more than 0.25 per 

cent. 

As the helium-bearing gas in the Mid-Continent and Texas regions has a definite strati-

• 

• 
• 

• 

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 35 

graphic distribution; the boundaries of the 

heliun1-rich areas are to some extent determined by the structural and areal geology. In 

large part, however, these boundaries appear 

to be controlled by some local conditions 

which are not yet understood and which can 

· be determined, .if at all, only by special study. 

It is possible that the sediments in the heliumbearing areas are peculiar in composition, perhaps containing disseminated deposits of the 

radioacti\7 e 1ninerals that generate helium. Or, 

it is possible that 1.musual·structural conditions 

characterize the rocks beneath the heliumbearing areas and that" the helium has ascended frOJn deep-seated sources and mingled 

with the hydrocarbon gases formed above. 

The belief that the helium is of plutonic origin is a popular one, al,ld the writer has frequently been asked whether it is not possible 

to account for the helium as having arisen 

through fissures from great depths. Some 

wn.rran t for this belief is afforded by the buried 

granite ridge on the west edge of the MidCo:ntinen t region, which, as n.lready described, 

was probably formed in part by faulting. Inasmuch, however, as the ridge extends far to 

the north of the helium-bea~ing area and probably also to the south of it, and as helium is 

found also 1nany miles east of the ridge, little 

weight can be attached to this evidence. The 

practical absence of helium in the deep gases 

nearer the granite is a strong argument against 

the supposition that the heliun1 has risen from 

deep-seated sources; and furthermore, there is 

no evidence in either the north Texas or the 

Ohio districts for supposing that there are any 

similarly unusual structural features in the 

basement rocks. 

On the other hand, there is some evidence 

directly opposed to the view that helium has 

arisen along fissures, for the gas produced in 

n1ost fields that are close to areas of uplift or 

to igneous intrusions is poor in helium. For 

exa)nple, as shown on Plate III, the fields of 

southern Oklahon1a, which· are close to the 

Wichita and Arbuckle uplifts, yield gas very 

poor in hel!un1; and several of the Wyoming 

fields, which are not far fro1n areas of uplift 

and intrusion, pi'oduce gas carrying only 

traces. The }Iavre field is, in fact, the only 

district close to an uplift which is known to 

produce gas carrying more than 0.25 per cent. 

of heliun1. Moreover, gas produced from a 

depth of 730 feet beneath a Tertiary lava flow 

near Prosser, Wash., contains only 0.06 per 

cent of helium, and the gas of the Thrall :field, 

Texas, which issues directly from a body of 

serpentine, contains no helium at all. The 

observed occurrences of the helium-bearing gas 

thus afford little basis for supposing thaot the 

helium is associated with unusual structure or 

with igneous activity. 

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF HELIUM-BEARING 

NATURAL GAS. 

. CONSTIT.UENTS OF NATURAL GAS. 

·Although all gaseous mixtures that issue 

from the earth: are of course natural gases, the 

term natural gas is ordinarily restricted to the 

gaseous mi..'\:tures rich in hydrocarbons ·that are 

generally associated in nature with petroleum. 

In many of the old analyses of natural gas a 

great variety of constituents are reported, but 

recent improvements in the technique of gas 

analysis ir:tdicate th~t the constituents are 

comparatively few in number and that natural 

gas i.s sl)ificiently _.uniform ___ in character to 

warrant its recognition as a chemically distinct 

type. Many varieties are known, however, 

and between them all gradations exist. 

The characteristic and principal constituents 

of ordinary natural gas are the light paraffin 

hydrqcarbons, methane and ethane, with 

generally smaller proportions· of propane and 

the next higher members of the paraffin series. 

~'Dry" gas not directly associated with petroleunl usually consists chiefly of methane with a 

little ethane; "wet" gas occurring in the same 

sand with oil n1ay carry also propane, butane, 

_pentane, and hexane. The·composition of gas 

occurring directly with oil is, however, influenced by the decrease in pressure due to the 

removal of oil and gas from the sands; in the 

early stages of a :field's life such a gas· may 

consist chiefly of methane and ethane, but as 

the pressure decreases the heaVier hydrocarbons, 

previously dissolved in the oil, are released, and 

the gas may then consist chiefly of propane and 

butane. Such gases are valuable on account of 

their heavier hydrocarbons, which may be extracted and condensed as gasoline; but they 

occur only in association with oil, and their total 

volume is small in comparison with that of the 

high-methane gases that are chiefly used for 

heating and lighting. Owing to the fact that the 

composition of "wet" or casing-head gas is 
·. 

36 HELIUM:..BEARING NA~URAL GAS • .__. 

largely a function of the· 'pressure in the sand, 

such gases are not likely to carry helium in 

proportions. large enough to be of value. Most 

of the gases sampled during the present investigation were therefore "dry" gases occurrjng in sands that do not yield ·oil. 

Allalyses made by the ~rdinary or eudiometric method do not show the higher hydrocarbons, which can be separated only by 

fractional distillation at low temperatures.55 

In the ordinary method of analysis_ the hydrocarbons are treated as a unit and the results 

are expressed, by algebraic calculation, in 

· terms of methane and ethane alone. Nevertheless, the w01k of Burrell and his associates 

indicates that small proportions of propane 

and butane are present in many or most gases, 

though, on the other hand, it shows also that 

the olefin hydrocarbons which are reported in 

niany old analyses probably do not occur in 

any natural gas.56 

presence usually indicates contamination of 

the sample by air, and in such analyses the 

proportion of nitrogen reported is also unduly 

high. Hydrogen and carbon monoxide are re .. 

ported, on the basis of indirect determina .. 

tions,_ in many old analyses, but according t9 

Burrell and Oberfell 57 these. substances are 

really present in few if any natural hydror.arbon 

gases. Hydrogen sulphide is present in some 

gases in proporti.ons as great as 2 or 3 per cent; 

though most gases do not contain even traces 

of it .. Helium, argon, and the other inert 

gases are probably present in minor quantity 

in most natural gas, but they can be determined 

only. by special methods, and in ordinary 

analyses they are reported with the nitJ~ogen. 

VARIETIES OF NATURAL GAS. 

As natural gas is simply a mechanical mixture of the constituents mentioned above, it 

has no fixed composition·and exhibits a wide 

Analyses showing various types of natural gas. 

[By Bureau of Mines.) 

1 .2 3 4 5 6 7 

Methane (CH4 ) •••••••• _ ••.••••••••••••••••••••• 86.7 96.5 67.6 6.6 66.2 23.6 51.3 

Ethane ~C Hfl) ...................... .' .•.•.•.. 9.5 .0 31.3 91.1 1.0 69.7 10.4 

·carbon ioxide (00:.~)-- ........................ 1. 7 1.4 .0 .0 30.4 2.5 .1 

Nitrogen a (N:.~)· ........... _. _. _ .............. 2.1 2.1 1. 1 2.3 2.4 1.3 38.2 

Hydrogen sulphide (II2S).: .................... ........... .......... .......... . . . . -.... ... . . . . . . . - 2.9 ......... Oxygen (02) ••• : •••••••• • ·------ ·----- • • ·--- • .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 

100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 

Heating value (British thermal units per cubic 

foot, at 0° C. and 760-millimeter pressure) ... 1,100' 1,028 1,302 1, 765 724 1,548 740 

Specific gravity (cakulated) .....•............ 0.63 0.58 0. 71 0.99 0.85 0.91 0.76 

a Includes helium and the other inert gases. 

1. Fullerton field, Orange County, Calif. 

2. Caddo field, Caddo and Bossier parishes, La. 

3. Oil CitY, Clarion County, Pa. 

4. TitusVllie Crawford County, Pa. 

5. McKittrick field, Kings County, Calif. 

6. Glasgow, Barren County, Ky. · . '1. Petrolia field, Clay County, Tex. . 1 4-6. Burrell G .. A., SeibertJ F. M., and Oberfell, G. G., The condensation of gasoline fromnaturalps: Bur. Mines Bull. 88, pp. 21, 22,1916. i, 3, 7. Burreli, G. A., and Ooerfell, G. G., Composition of the natural gas used in 25 cities: Bur. Mmes Tech. Paper 109, p. 7, 1915. · 

After the paraffin hydrocfl.I"bons the c.hief. 

constituents of ·natural gas are nitrogen and 

carbon dioxide. These substances occur in 

small proportion in most natural gas, but in 

some varieties they are important constituents. 

Oxygen is reported in many analyses, but its 

ss See Burrell, G. A., Seibert, F. M., and Robertson, I. W., Analysis 

of natural gas and illUplinating gas by fractions I distillation at low 

temperatures and pressures: Bur. Mines Tech. Paper 104, 1915. 

56 Burrell, G. A., and Oberfell, G. G., Composition of the natural gas 

used in 25 cities: Bur. Mines Tech. Paper 109, p. 11, 1915. 

range in chemical character. Several fairly 

well marked varieties may be distinguished, 

though between them all gradations exist. 

The helium-rich gases, however, belong to a 

distinct .chemical type, and in order to understand the characteristics of this type a study 

of the accompanying analyses, which have been 

selected to illustrate the different varieties of 

natural gas, will be helpful. 

s7 Op. cit., p. 11. 

·, 

• 

• 
CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 37 

The table on page 36 indicates that several 

varieties of natural gas can be distinguished, 

as follows: 

A. Pure hydrocarbon type (analyses 1 to 4). Most of the 

naturnl gas produced in the United States is of this type, 

coi1tnining 95 per cent or more of paraffin hydrocarbons and 

very minor proportions of carbon dioxide and nitrogen. 

Many subdivisions of the type may be made, however, 

according to the relative proportions of the hydrocarbons, 

conventionnlly expressed in terms of methane and ethane. 

Analysis 1, showing 9.5 per cent of ethane, represents the 

commonest variety and would not differ greatly from a 

composite analysis of all the natural gas produced in the 

United States. Analysis 2 represents a pure methane gas 

of the type produced chiefly in eastern Oklahoma and 

northwestern Louisiana. Analyses 3 and 4 presumably 

represent casing-he.ad gases-gases occurring in the same 

sand with oil-and show high proportions of ethane and 

the heavier hydrocarbons. The gas represented by 

analysis 4 probably consists chiefly of ethane and propane, 

and .carries butane, pentane, and hexane as well. All gas 

of tho pure hydrocarbon type has a high heating value 

and is therefore the most valuable for industrial and 

domestic purposes. 

B. Carbon dioxide type·(analysis 5). Some of the gas 

produced in the California fields is notable for the high proportion of car bon dioxide it contains. Some California gases 

carry as much as 49 per cent of carbon dioxide, and a great 

many contnin10 or 15 per cent. Gas of the carbon dioxide 

type has naturally a rather low heating value, usuallY. less 

. than 900 British thermal units. Swamp gases of recent origin are also usually high in carbon dioxide, but true natural 

gas contnining noteworthy proportions of this constituent 

occurs almost wholly in California. · 

C. Hydrogen sulphide typo (analysis 6). Gas carrying 

as mueh as 2 to 3 per cent of hydrogen sulphide has been 

found in a number of localities, though most natural gas 

contains no hydrogen sulphide whatever. For this reason 

tho hydrogen sulphide gases warrant recognition as a 

separate type, even though their characteristic constituent 

is invariably present only in small proportion. 

D. Nitrogen typo(analysis 7 and analyses on pp. 38-40). 

Natural gas carrying as much as 85 per cent of nitrogen 

occurs in Kansas, and gas carr-ying from 10 to 40 per ·cent 

has been found in Oklahoma, Texas, Ohio, and elsewhere. 

The nitrogen type of gas is of special interest here, for it is 

the only one in which noteworthy proportions of helium 

have been found. The heating value of the nitrogen type 

of gas is naturally low, and gas carrying 85 per cent of. 

nitrogen is' so nearly incombustible that it is commonly 

called wind gas. 

It js evident that ordinary natural gas n1ay 

be regarded simply as the lightest member of 

the petroleum series-gas, oil, and asphaltand there is abundant evidence to indicate that 

natural gas, like oil ·and •asph~t, is chiefly a 

product of the decay of organic matter that has 

been buried in the sediments. As there are 

idfferent kindS' of organic m~tter, differing in 

composition, and as the conditions undQr 

which decay takes place are doubtless also 

variable, many different varieties of petroleum 

are known; and it must be recognized, furthermore, that petroleum may later undergo chemical and physical changes ·which lead to still 

further .differentiation. Although the geochemistry of petroleum has not been extensively studied, it is t~e writer's opinion that the 

composition of most petroleum is determined 

chiefly by its geologic relations-that is, by the 

age and degree of deformation of the surround-

{ng rocks and by the chemical character of 

those rocks and. of the waters which they contain. 58 There is more evidence for this thesis 

as applied to oil than as applied to natural gas, 

for gas is relatively simple in composition and 

to a certain extent is the end product of the 

decomposition of oil; yet the composition of· 

some gases is obviously controlled by their 

geoiogic relations. Much of the carbon dioxide 

in the California gas, for example, has probably 

been formed by oxidation of the hydrocarbons 

through contact with mineralized waters, 

and the hydrogen sulphide in some gases, at 

least, is formed by the reduction of sulp~ate 

waters by hydrocarbons. 50 

The nitrogen type of natural gas, is, however, 

difficult to account for. 60 The obvious supposition that the nitrogen represents the inactive residue of air that has been entrapped. 

in the sediments is opposed _ by the fact 

that it contains a much smaller proportion 

of argon than does atmospheric nitrogen. 

The general occurrence of helium in highnitrogen gases also suggests that the origin of 

the nitrogen is in some way related to that of 

the helium. (See pp. 38-40.) Moreover, the 

nitrogen can not well be explained as due to the 

peculiar composition of the organic matter 

from which the gas was derived, for the oil of 

Kansas, Oklahoma, and Ohio is low in nitrogen, 

whereas that of California, where no highnitrogen gas~s are known, is exceptionally rich 

in the nitrogenous bases.- This difference is 

brought out by the analyses of California, Ohio, 

and Kansas oils given in the following table: 

r;s Rogers, G. S., The Sunset-Midway oil field, Calif., Part II, Geochemical relations of the oil, gas, and water: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 

117, 1919. 

~9 Idem, pp. 26-29. 

GO For a brief discussion of the origin of nitrogen in natural gas see 

Haworth, Erasmus, and McFarland, D. F., The Dexter, Kans., nitrogen 

gas well: Science, new ser., vol. 21, p. 191, 1904. 
38 HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 

Ultimate analyses of petroleum. 

4 6 

Carbon ............................ . Hydrogen ............. ." ............ . Sulphur ........................ " .. . Nitrogen ........................ ~ .. . Undetermined ..•................... 84. 17 

12. 15 

l. 50 

l. 25. 

.. 93 

86.51 

11.41 

. 74 

. 58 

. 76 

84.57 

13. 62 

. 72 

.11 

. 98 

85.46 

13. 91 

.48 

.15 

85.43 

13.07 

. 37 

1. 13 

85.63 

12.44 

. 37 

l. 56 

100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 

1. Bardsdale, Calif. Mabery, C. F.; and Hudson, E. J., On the composition of California petroleum: Am. Acad. Arts and Sci. Proc., vol. 36, 

p. 255, 1900. 2. McKittrick, Calif. Allen, I. C., and Jacobs,·w. S., Physical and chemical" properties of tl}e petroleums of the San Joaquin Valley, Calif.: 

Bur. Mines Bull. 19, p. 28, 1911. . . 3. Findlay, O~io. Mabery, C. F.,_ On the composition of the Ohio.and Canadian sulphm petroleums: Am. Chern. Jour., vol. 17, p. 727, 1895. 

4. Welker, OhiO. Mabery, C. F.< Idem. · 5. Cherryvale, Kans. Bartow, Edward, and McCollum, E. V., Kansas petroleum: Kansas Acad. Sci. Trans., vol. 19, p. 58, 1903. 6. Humboldt, Kans. Bartow, Edward, ansi McCollum, E. V., idem. 

COMPOSITION OF HELIUM-BEARING GAS. 

As stated in the foregoing sections, although 

at least tr~ces of helium occur in most naturaf 

gas, noteworthy proportions have been found 

·only in gas of the nitrogen type. The percentage of helium, moreover, seems to depend 

in a measure on the percentage of nitrogen, 

though there is no direct proportionality ·between the two, and the nitrogen-helium ratio 

varies greatly in different gases. On the other 

hand, there are some natural gases high in 

nitrogen which carry only small proportions of 

helium. The chemical characteristics of 

helium-bearing gas are shown ·by analyses 1 to 

16, on page 39. 

In the course o~ the present investigation the 

helium content of a large number of gases was 

determined (see pp. 96-109), but only a few complete analyses were made. Those given in the 

first table(p. 39)were therefore selected from the 

analyses, mostly of Kansas gas, published by 

Cady ·and McFarland. 61 In the second table 

are given a few ordinary analyses of gas from 

other localities, together with determinations 

of the helium content of gas from the same. 

source. Samples for the ordinary analysis and 

for the helium determination of the Ohio gases, 

Nos. 23 and 24, were collected simultaneously, 

but the samples for the ordinary analyses of the 

other gases were collected several months or 

years before those for the helium determinations. .As natural gas from the same well 

varies· somewhat in composition from day to 

day, the exact ratio between helium and nitrogen in these samples can not be determined 

at Cady, H. P., and McFarland, D. F., Thecompositionofnaturalgas, 

with special study of the constituents Q[ Kansas gases: Kansas Univ. 

Ge0l. Survey, vol. 9, pp. 228-302, 1908. 

from the data given, though the ratios indicated are undoubtedly approximately correct. 

More extensiv.e data regarding the ratio of 

helium to nitrogen are given in figure7 (p 40), 

which is based on all the analyses given by Cady 

and McFarland and on a few composite determinations similar to those in the accompanying 

table. As such determinations do not furnish 

data for computing the· exact ratio they are 

plotted in the diagram as large open circles, 

whereas complete analyses on one sample are 

plotted as small dots. 

The diagram brings out the wide variation in 

the ratio of helium to nitrogen in different gases 

but indicates that the average gas containing 

10 per cent of nitrogen carries about 0.3 per 

cent of helium and that no gas containing 10 

per cent of nitrogen is likely to carry more than 

0.5 per cent of helium. Exceptions to this rule 

may be found, but the principle is believed to 

be sufficiently well founded to warrant the use 

of the nitrogen determination as a guide to the 

detection of helium-bearing gas; and in the 

writer's investigation of the distribution of 

helium a large number of ordinary analyses 

were collected and were used to supplement 

the data afforded by the direct tests for helium. 

Moreover, nitrogen is the chief factor -in lowering the heating value of the Mid-Continent 

gases, and as general information concerning 

the heating value of a gas is usually not difficult 

to obtain, the rule that gases low in nitrogen 

are poor in helium is of great practical aid in 

locating the helium-rich varieties. 

It should be noted, however, that gases low 

in heating· value are not necessarily rich in 

helium. In the first place, low heating value 

may be due, as in. Calif<?rnia gas; to a high per-

• 
• 

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS, 

-·- --

Methane ( CR4) ••• : •••••••••••••••• 

Ethane(C(JHif .•••................•. 

Olefines ( 2 4, et,~.) ................ 

Carbon dwxide (.C02) •••••••••••••• 

O~ygen (0~ ....................... 

N1tr:ogen lN 2) ...................... 

Hehum ( [e) ....................... 

Methane 6CH4) .................... 

Ethane ( CRf) ..................... 

Olefines ( 2I 4 , etc.) ......... -··.-.· 

Carbon d10xicle (C02) •••••••••••••• 

O~ygen (0~) ....................... 

N 1tr_ogen .fj'~ 2) ...................... 

Hehum( ·e) •...................... 

Analyses of helium-bearing natural gas. 

[By Cady and McFarland.) 

1 2 3 4 

14.85 51.80 82.25 78.60 

.41 .00 .·00 7. 71 

········- . 00 .12 . 55 

.00 . 20 . 61 .15 . 20 . 10 Trace • . 30 

82.70 46.40 16.40 12.13 

1.84 1.50 . 616 ._56 

100.00 100.00 99.996 100.00 

9 10 11 12 

79.10 94.50 94.30 81.10 

7.44 :oo . 75 11.95 . 77 . 00 .00 .10 

.00 . 00 1.94 .10 

.00 . 23 . 24 . 20 

12.44 5.08 2.60 6.39 . 25 '.183 . 17 .159 

100.00 99.993 100.00 99.999 

a Includes 0.25 per cent reported as hydrogen. 

5 6 

74.10 81.40 . 00 .00 ............ .00 . 54 . 92 . 00 Trace • 

24.85 17.22 . 51 .46 

100. 00· 100.00 

13 14 

92.40 77.40 . 00 14. 18 

.10 . 86 . 81 .73 

.15 . 00 

6.43 6.66 

. 08 .167 

99.97 99.997 

39 

7 8 

84.40 88.60 

.00 . 00 

.10 . 00 . 00 . 62 

Trace • . 31 

15.10 10.20 

.40 . 27 

100.00 100.00 

15 16 

88.10 86.50 

7.37 . 00 . 65 . 29 . 24 1.35 . 00 . 00 

3. 60 11. 86 . 09 Trace . 

a 100.00 100.00 

1. Dexter, Cowley County, Kn.ns~ Gas from 3HHoot well supplying tov.'ll. Collected in 1905. . 2. l~urclm, Greenwood County, Kans. Gas from wells drilled in northeast corner of tov.'ll and furnishing town supply. Averugo depth of 

wells 375 feet. Collected October 25, 1906. · 3. l?rodoniai Wilson County, Kn.ns. Pipo-lino &'"lmple of gas used in Fredonia and furnished by wells 1,085 to 1,250 feet deep, 2 to 7milcs east, 

south, and nort 1wcst of town. · 4. l~lmdn.lo Chase Cotmty, Kans. Gas from wells about 150 feet deep. Collected October 6, 1906. . 5. 1\lolino, Elk Cotmty Kans. Gas from wells about 1150 feet deep south, cast, and west of Moline. Collected Juno 24, 1906. 

6. 1:-awrcncc, Douglas County,.~ Kans. Sample of small fl. ow of gas escaping from abandoned well about 1,200 f<'ct deep. Collected July 4,1906. 7. Olatho1 Johnson County, kuns. Sample of gas supplied to town and derived from wells near Spring Hill, about 10 miles to the south.· 

Average doptn of wells 580 feet. Colloctod August 2, l!lOG. . 8. l~udora, Douglas County, Kans. Gas from wells about 350 feet deep. . 9. Augusta BuUer,County, Kans. Gas from wells averaging 1,440 foot in depth. Sampled August 4, 1906. 

10. lola, AI\on Connty1 Kims. Sample of gas supplied to town of lola. and derived from wells near by. Sampled June 10, 1906. 11. P!po-lino sample 01 gas supplied to town of I~awroncc, Ku.ns., and derived chiefly from fields in Allen and Neosho counties. Collected 

Docembor 12, 1906. 

12. Arkm1sns City, Cowley CountY Kans. Gas from well 750 feet deep. 13. Cru1oy, Montgomery County, l{uns. Gas from wcll1,550 feet deep, 2 miles cast of Cuney. Collected July H, 1906. 

14. Marion, Grant County, lnd. Sample received August 25, 1906. 

15. Morgantown, Monongalia County, W. Va. Sample from well about 1,800 feet deep, 10 miles west of Morga.ntown. Producing sa.nd prob- ably Big lujun. Sampled August 18, 1906. . · l!l. :i'lcrro, llughos County, S. Dak. Gas from shallow wells. 

Analyses of heliurn-bearing natural gas. 

(Eudiomotric analyses by various chemists; helium later determined on different samples from same source by C. W. Seibel.] 

17 18- 19 20 21 22 23 24 

~ethane 6CHj) •••••••••.•••••••••••• 10.54 38.94 50.6 49.08 30.33 57.89 77.3 86.1 

Ethane ( dH6 ..................... 1. 64 4.80 10.9 3.89 26.69 16.89 7.6 4.6 :Eli~1erhy rocarbons (C3H 8 , etc.) ••••• .00 .00 ......... .00 .00 .00 . ........ . . . . . . . . . Car on dioxide (C02) ................ .13 .24 .1 .40 . 49 .24 .0 .0 Oxy~en ~Oil) •••••.......•...••••••• .00 . 32 .0 .00 .00 .00 .0 .0 

Hesi ue mtrogen, helium, etc.) ••••• 87.69 55. 70 38.4 46. 67 42.51. 24.97 1:5.1 9. 6 

100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.02 99.99 100.00 100.3 

Helium (He) .••.••••••••••......•.. 2. 13 1.94 . 945 . 94 I .. 39 . 27 . 43 . 40 

· 17. Augusta field Butler County, Kans.· ''Wind gas" occurrin~ at depth of 400 to 600 feet: Analysis by H. C. Allen, University of Kansas .. 18. Sedan district, Chautauqua County, Ku.ns. Gas from Flollllllg & Wadsworth well, sec. 27, '1'. 33 S., R. 11 E. Depth 375 feet .. Analysis by H. C. Allen. • · 19. Petrolia field, Clay County, Tex. Pipe-line gas. Analysis by Bureau of Mines on sample collected in October, 1914; helium determined on sample colloctod in November 1917. · . 20 .. Sodan_district_,Hogors poo\,chautauqua. Cotmty, Kans. Gas from T. E. Barr wcll1, sec. 36, T. 33 S., H. 10 E. Depth about 6!l0fcet . . AnalySIS by H. C. Alton. . 21. Billings field, Noble County, Okla. Gas from E. N. Gillespie gas well, sec. 21, T. 23 N., R. 2 W. Depth ofsu.nd 1,036 feet. ·Analysis by Empire Gas & Fuel Co. · · 22. Morrison field, Pawnee County, Okla. Gas from Miller well 1. Analysis by Empire Gas & Fuel Co. 

23. Vinton Catmty field, Ohio. Gas from Ohio l~uel Supply Co.'s ~\•elll!l91, sec. 1, T. 9 N., R. 18 W. Gas from Clinton sand at 21498foet •. Aunlysis by .Buronu of Mines. 

24. Vinton County field, Ohio. Gas from Ohio Fuel Supply Co.'s well 634, sec, 1, !1'. 8 N., H. 18 W. Gas.from Berea sand at 660 feet . • o\nalysis by Bureau of Mines. 
40 HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 

centage of carbon dioxide. ·Secondly, even if it lower ratios are in the. gases of central Kansas 

is due to nitrogen a l}.igh percentage of nitrogen fields, which lie near the north end of the 

does not necessarily indicate a _gas rich· in area. It seems, -however, that the gases in 

helium. Some of the northern Oklahoma gases which the ratio is unusually low are rather 

carry from 20 to 40 percent of nitrogen and only poor in both helium and nitrogen. 

z.oo 

1.90 

1.80 

1.70 

1.60 

1.50 

~ .1.40 

s 1.30 w 

:r .1.2Q 

r.... 

0 1.10 w / 

::> 

. 

// 

/~ 

/. 

n 

/_,. 

/" /" 

. 1.-/ 

,./ 

// 

,./ 

0 I!) 1.00 

;: 9-- / 

z .90 

tl .80 0::: 

~ .70 

. 60 

. so 

.40 

.30 

.20 

.10 

• u 

••• ~/ 

· ...... :·• . 

• 

v_s;, 

• 

.o 

,.."' 

,·"' , .... 

. /, 

,. 

08 v 

c 0 

.... 0 o s 10 r5 .zo zs 3o 35 40 45 so ss 60 65 10 75 so .85 so 

PERCENTAGE OF NITROGEN 

FIGURE 7.-Diagra~ showing relation of helium to nitrogen in 50 sainples of natural gas. Points based on complete analyses of one sample 

indicated by dots; points based on determinations of helium in one sample and of nitrogen in another indicated by open circles. 

0.2 to 0.4 per cent of helium. The range in the DETERMINATION OF HELIUM IN,NATURAL GAS. 

ratio of nitrogen to helium in a few typical DEVELOPMENT OF METHODS. 

gases is show]} in the following table: .. 

Ratios of nitrogen to helium in natural gas. 

Field. 

Morrison, Okla ..................... . Ponca City, Okla .............. : ... . Billings, Okla ................... .. Loco, Okla ....................... . Otto, Kans .......... : .............. . Dexter, Kans .................... · .. . Augusta, Kans ........... · ......... . Vinton County, Ohio .............. . Sedan, Kans ....................... . Fredonia, K.ans ................... . Vinton County, Ohio .............. . Elmdale, Kans ............. · ...... .. New Albany, Kans.: .............. . 

Nitro- Helium 

gen(N2) (He) (per· (per 

cent). cent). 

25.0 

40. 1 

42.5 

16.2 

57.8 

82. 7 

88.0 

15.1 

55. 7 

16.4 

9.6 

12. 1 

9.8 

0.22 

. 36 

. 39 

.17 

1. 04 

1.84 

2.00 

. 43 

1.94 

. 62 

.40 

. 56 

.49 

Ratio 

N2He. 

114 

111 

109 

95 

55 

45 

44 

·35 

29 

26 

24 

22 

20. 

It is conspicuous that the highest ratios are 

found in northern Oklahoma, in gases such as 

those o{ the Ponca City, Billings, Morrison, 

Pearson, and Myers fields, all of which .lie· near 

the southern extremity of the rich heliumbearing area. · On the other hand, some of the 

Identificatio11 of the ·presence of helium in 

most gaseous mi~tures is accomplished without great difficulty by means of the spectroscope, provided the proportion of helium 

present is not too smalL The precise quantitative determination of the helium, however, 

requires its separation from the other gases 

composing the mixture, and this is a more 

difficult matter. Carbon dioxide, oxygen, and 

the hydrocarbons are easily. eliminated, but 

special methods are necessary for the removal 

of nitrogen ·and the inert gases. 

Ramsay in his early researches on helium· 

removed the nitrogen by sparking, which is a 

slow and tedious proc~ss. Sparking under 

various conditions was at first used by other . 

investigators, but Dewar's discovery that nitrogen is absorbed by charcoal cooled with liquid 

air, whereas helium is not, has served to facilitate greatly the separation of the two elements. 

Pewar's principle is now generally used -by 

most English and American investigators, 

although some French scientists prefer the 

• 

•• 
• 

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 41 

more laborious chemical methods of removing 

nitrogen. 

Cady and McFarland in their original 

research on helium in natural gas adopted 

Dewar's principle to remove nitrogen and all 

the other common constituents of the gas and 

constructed an apparatus in which the whole 

operation ·could be efficiently conducted. 

Essentinlly the same method, with a similar 

apparatus, was used by Prof. Cady at the 

outs~t of the Government's investigation and 

nlso by C. W. Seibel in his· continuation of the 

work The method is one of unusual interest 

because of the short time required for accurate 

determinations, and Mr. Seibel, who analyzed 

most of the samples discussed in this repo.rt, 

has courteously furnished the following 

description of it: 

APPARATUS AND METHOD OF PROCEDURE. 

By C. W. SEIBEL. 

The apparatus used in the quantitative determination 

of helium from either natural gas or concentrates was 

essentially the same as that employed by Cady •and 

McFarland in their earlier work. 62 It is not so well known 

however, as to· preclude description here. The method of 

analysis also was similar to that of the original work, but 

modifications have been added from time to time, by 

Dr. Cady and his coworkers, and these have been included 

in the following account. 

The apparatus, which is shown in Plate IV, is composed 

of the following parts: F is an automatic single-fall Sprengel vacuum pump, of the ordinary 4-tube type. The 

tubes are about 83 centimeters long and 6 millimeters in 

outer di~meter except the capillary fall tube, which is a 

heavy capillary tube 1! millimeters in inner diameter 

and 110 centimeters long and the free end of which is 

bent upward so as to deliver into the collecting bulb j. 

This bulb is of 50. cubic centimeters capacity and has a 

capillary stopcock on the top. The bulb g is an air trap, 

the top of which is sealed after the pump is f1lled with 

mercury. 1'he four pump tubes are joined together at 

the bottom with heavy-walled stethoscope tubing. Screw 

clamps here serve very well to regulate the speed of the 

pump. The mercury is pumped from the main reservoir 

rn to the pump supply reservoir h through "k and k1 by 

means of an auxiliary Nelson vacuum ·pump u, attached 

to the supply reservoir at i. A few iron wires inserted 

into the end of the suction pipe at k cause alternate slugs 

of mercury and air to be drawn up k and k1 and into h. 

By means of a cork float to which k is fastened; any level 

of mercury desired can be maintained in the supply 

reservoir. lis the mercury. overflow outlet of the supply 

reservoir, the excess mercury flowing down the tube 

which dips below the mercury in trap l1• · This trap 

prevents the loss of the vacuum in h. d and e are mercury and water vapor traps and, being of small tubing, 

are·so arrariged that they go into one Dewar tube, which 

112 Am. Chom. Soc. Jour., vol. 29, p. 1522, 1907. 

affords considerable saving in liquid air and space. During the analysis these tubes are immersed in liquid air 

and serve to prevent water vapor or mercury vapor from 

entering the spectrum tube. The spectrum tube c is so 

constructed that the light for the spectroscope may be 

taken eitp.er from the end of the capillary or a~ong it. 

It is excited by a 6-volt spark coii giving a spark of about 

1 centimeter in air. The gas, having stood over charcoal 

at the temperature of liquid air and passing through this 

tube excited by the spark coil, emits a glow which when 

viewed through the spectroscope tells at a glance whether 

or not the gas is pure or contaminated with nitrogen. 

Any appreciable amount of nitrogen c·an be told by the 

color of the tube alone, for nitrogen will cause the spectral tube to give a purplish glow, while pure helium 

unless at very low pressure is yellow. The bulbs b1, b2, 

and b3 are made of glass carefully annealed. They contain about 20 grams of coconut charcoal each, with plugs 

of glass wool at either end, and are of such dimensions 

that they will ea~ily fit in 40 by 200 millimeter Dewar 

tubes. They are connected with one another by being 

sealed in such a manner as to make one continuous train. 

Three-way glass stopcocks are inserted in the train in 

such wise that tubes b1 and b2 may be used in series, and 

b3 may be in series with the other two or .by-passed at 

will. These stopcocks are also arranged in such a manner 

that the three charcoal tubes can be conveniently exhausted by the auxiliary pump. a2 is a glass liquefaction 

bulb of 40-cubic centimeter capacity with a mercury 

manometer, a3, attached. By means of this manometer 

the pressure in a2 can be determined at any time. The 

liquefaction bulb is so constructed that the gas must go 

nearly to the bottom of the tube before it can get into 

the connecting tube between a2 and b1• The curlicues 

inserted into different parts of the apparatus serve as 

expansion joints. The two tubulated bottles p and q are 

used for measuring gas samples and are of 2-liter capacity. 

They are so arranged that p can be filled with water 

wpich has been saturated with helium, and then the 

water displaced by natural gas, the water going into q 

and vice versa. After the bottles are leveled up a pinch 

clamp on the connecting tube between the two serves 

to maintain atmospheric pressure in p, and a pinch clamp 

on the inlet· tube to prevent the escape of .gas while 

weighing, etc. o is a solution balance for weighing p 

and should have a sensibility of 1 gram. v is a cylinder 

for collecting samples from the field. n is an electric 

heater for heating the charcoal bulbs while they are being 

exhausted. 'I.L is a Nelson two-stage vacuum pump ·for 

exhausting the charcoal bulbs while being heated, and 

for use as an auxiliary vacuum pump to lift the mercury 

into the supply reservoir h. The switches r, s, and ·~ 

. control the spark coil for the spectrum tube, motor for 

vacuum pump, and heater, respectively. 

The apvaratus· is first evacuated -the charcoal bulbs bv 

the Nelson pump and the spectrum tube and traps by th~ 

mercury pump to a black vacuum. The· charcoal bulbs· 

are heated to 200° C. and the evacuation is continued for 

about 20 minutes. After being allowed to cool, the charcoal bulbs, liquefaction bulb, and water and mercury 

vapor trap are immersed in liquid air, which is contained 

in silvered Dewar tubes. While the charcoal bulbs are 

cooling, the gas, which is held in the sampling cylinder 
42 HELIUM -~EARING N ATUR~ GAS. 

under a pressure of severa.l pounds, is forced into the tnbu- This method, though_ somewhat long, taking on an averlated measuring flask. A pinch clamp is put on the end age of about 1t ho1irs for a determination, in the hands of 

of the inlet tube, the bottles are leveled, a pinch clamp is one who is familiar with it gi~es surprisingly good results, 

placed on the connecting tube, and the flask pis weighed repeated checks within 0.02 per cent being easily obtained. 

on the solution balance. A portion of this gas, approxi- For a satisfactory apparatus a good deal depends on the 

mately 1 liter, is then allowed to flow from the bottle stopcocks used and the lubricant employed. A stopcock 

through the rubber tube. to '.the evacuated space of the should be of the best quality obtainable, and the best 

liquefaction bulb, the flow being controlled by stopcock lubricant has been found to be that as given in Ramsay 

a1, and the rate of inlet being determined by the action of and Travers'shook "Experimentalstudyofgases," namely, 

the manometer. At the temperature of liquid air the two·parts of pure rubber clippings to one part of vaseline 

hydrocarbons are liquefied, and the pressnre on the mano- and one-eighth part of hard paraffin wax heated until a 

meter adjoining indicates whether or not the gas is of high homogeneous mixture is obtained. A good stopcock, 

nitrogen content. · If the nitrogen content is high ·the . when properly lubricated, will appear perfectly clear, 

manometer will indicate considerable pressure within the showing no rings or air bells whatever. 

tube, which can. be due only to unl~quefied nitrogen or The writer wishes to take this opportunity to express 

helium, though of course a small amount of it is always due his appreciation for the· help and ad\j.ce afforded him by 

to the partial pressure of methane aJ?,d other hydrocarbons .. Dr. H. r·. Cady, under whose personal direction the early 

The unliquefied portiv1.1-, consisting of nitrogen, helium, part of the work was performed, and by Dr. R. B. ~1oore, 

and some of the hydrocarbons, is. admitte~, in small at Fort Worth, during the later part of the work; also for 

amounts, to the first charcoal bulb, which of comse is the assistance of Messrs. H .. M. Eastman and J. B. Ramsay, 

under a very high vacuum, and then to the second. This who analyzed some of the samples toward the end of the 

·procedure is repeated until the manometer will rise no field work, and to Miss Emily V. Burger·, of the University 

farther, indicating that all the helium and nitrogen and of Kansas, who analyzed 13 samples while the writer was 

some methane have gone into the charcoal bulb and that on a trip to the Fort Worth plants. 

the pressure ip. the liquefaction bulb is due only to methane 

and the higher hydrocarbons. The gas is allowed to stand 

in the charcoal bulbs for about three minutes, and then 

communication is made 'between the charcoal bulb, the 

spectrum tube, and the pump. The gas not adsorbed by 

the charcoal is pumped ofi and delivered into the collecting tube j. As coconut charcoal at the temperature of 

liquid air will absorb relati ·•ely large volumes of all gases 

except helium, neon, and hydrogen, and as neon and 

hydrogen do not occur in troublesome quantities, the gas 

delivered by the pump should be pure helium. However, 

to avoid .danger of the charcoal bulbs becoming supersaturated with nitrogen or the possibility of an air leak 

developing, so that nitrogen would be pumped off with 

the helium, constant watch is kept of the spectrum tube by 

means of a spectroscope, small amounts of nitrogen being 

very easily detected in this way. If nitrogen appears early 

enough, the pump is stopped, the third charcoal 'bulb, b3, 

is put into communication with the pump, and the nitro-· 

gen diffuses back into it, and then by pumping the helium, 

which is in b1 and b2 , through b3, a satisfactory determination can often be obtained without having to repeat the 

entire experiment. 

If the spectroscope indicates nothing but helium, the 

pudtping is continued until the spectrum tube shows 

cathode rays or goes out. 'l'he gas which has been collected 

in j at the bottom of the mercury pump is transferred to a 

sillall Hempel burette, and its volume. is determined. 

After the tubulated flasks are releveled, the one containing gas is again weighed. The difference in weight, in 

grams, of the flask as first weighed full of gas,and after part 

of the gas has been used and has been displaced with 

water gives the volume of gas used in cubic centimeters. 

If care is taken to see that the bottles are carefully leveled 

and stand·always in the same relative position while beiag 

weighed, the necessary accuracy i.n measuring the volumtl 

of the natural-gas sample used may be easily obtained. 

All volumes are reduced to standard condition and the 

percentage .of helium is calculated. 

OCCURRENCE OF HELIUM IN MINERALS AND IN 

OTHER GASES. 

GENERAL DISTRmUTION OF HELIUM. 

Although helium was discovered on the earth 

only 25 years ago and for some time thereafter 

was regarded as one of the rare elements, it is 

now known to be widely distributed through 

the earth's crust. As already described, helium 

was discovered on the earth in the gas given 

off by uraninite, and the researches of Strutt 

and· others have shown that a great variety of 

other minerals and rocks contain helium in 

small proportions. Only a few months after 

its· discovery heliun1 was found to be a constituent of the atmosphere and of the gas given 

off by a mineral spring, and i~ has since been 

found to occur in the gases emitted by a great 

many other springs. Helium has been found 

also in mine gases and in volcanic gases, as well 

as in natural gas. 

The discovery in 1903 of the fact that· helium 

is a product of the decay of the radio-elements, 

·which were known to be wi'dely disseminated, 

furnished to most observers an adequate 

.explanation of the occurrence of helium in so 

many natural substances. There 'is no doubt 

that the minute proportions of helium found in 

·most nilnerals may be accounted for in this 

way, but the great volumes found in natural 

gas are more difficult to explain. Before discussing the origin of heliqm in p,atural ,gas it 

• 
... """' .... 

U . S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESS!O::-IAL PAPER 121 PLATE IV 

~ 

APPAHATUS USED IN QUANTITATIVE DETEHMINATION OF HELIUM. 
• 

• 

OCCURRENCE OF HELIUM IN MINERALS AND IN OTHER GASES. 43 

will therefore be desirable to review the occurrences of helium in minerals and in other gases. 

HELIUM IN MINERALS AND ROCKS. 

HELIUM CONTENT OF MINERALS. 

The discovery of helium in uraninite naturally led to a search for it in other minerals, with 

·the result that only a year or so after the element itself was discovered a number of minerals were found to be helium ·bearing. When 

the relations of helium to the radio-elements became lmo\vn, a great· many more minerals were 

tested, the amounts of heliu1n and of radium 

and thorium in each being determined quanti.:. 

tatively, so that extensive data on the distribution of heliuin in minerals are now available. 

A very great majority of all the minerals tested 0 have proved to contain at least trac.es of helium, 

the proportion varying in general with the 

proportions of the radio-elements. Son1e minerals that contain no radioactive substances, 

however, have been found to contain helium in 

considerable quantities. 

The :first observations on the occurrence of 

helium in Ininerals were made by Ramsay and 

Travers03 in 1897. They found that the rareearth minerals fergusonite, monazite, samarskite, columbite, pitchblende, and malacone 

contain heliui:n "up to 1.5 cubic centimeters 

per g~·am." The malacone contains argon as 

well. 04 Specimens of cinnabar, cryolite, apatite, barite, scapolite', and cobalt ore gave no 

helium or argon. Five meteorites were tested 

with negative results,.hut the meteorite from 

Augusta County, Va., proved to contain 

helium. 

Chamberlin, 05 in connection with his studies 

of the gases in rocks, determined the composition of the gases given off by heating pitchblende and carnotite in a vacuum as follows: 

63 Ramsay, William, and Travers, M:. W ., The gaseous constituents of 

. certain mineral substances and. waters: Roy. Soc. London Proc., vol. 

00, p. 442, 1897. 64 Kitchin, E. S., and Wihtcrson, W. G., Malaconc, a silicate of zir~ 

. conlum containing argon and helium: Chcm. So~. Jour., vol. 89, p. 1568, 

1906. . 

65 Chamberlin, R. T., Tho gases in rocks: Carnegie lost. Washington 

Pub. lOG, p. 20, 1908. . . 

Composition of the ,ga$eS extracted jrom pitchblende and 

carnotite. 

[Volumes per unit volume of rock.] 

-------------------------------------------

I 

Pitchblonde, 

Beaver Carnotite, 

Colorado. 

I

. County, 

-Colo. 

Carbon dioxide .............. ~ ........... ~:.. 2.46 

Carbon monoxide ................. ·I 0. 24 . 23 

Methane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 . 02 

Hydrogen ......................... _I . 07 . 05 

~~Yi~g~~ ·_ -_ ·_ ·_ ~ :·_. _.. ·_ ·_ ~: ~: _· _·. ·_ ·_ ~ : : : : : : :: : ~~ . 22 . I .04 -----1-----

1 . 98 3. 02 

By far the most e;xtensive and systematic 

investigation has been made by R. J. Strutt, 

who .determined the helium and the radium 

. and thorium content of a great variety of rare 

and common minerals. In his earlier experiments Strutt extracted the helium by heatincr 

a co~siderable quantity of the powdered miner~ to redness and purifying the gas thus obtained 

first by sp3!king and finally by absorption in 

cooled charcoaL The· extraction of helium by 

the use of red heat is by no means complete, 

the helium extracted being probably only 

about half that which the mineral contains. 

The table on page 44 shows the helium content 

of some of the minPrals examined by Strutt06 

and also the value of uranium oxide as calcu- · 

lated from the radium content. 

In discussing his results Strutt pointed out 

that as helium is generated by the decay of 

uranium, the ratio of helium to uranium 

should be of the same order in all minerals ' though greater in ancient minerals than in recent ones. In order to test this hypothesis, 

Strutt next e;xamined groups of similar minerals from different geologic horizons. In this 

investigation th~: cr.~q~ method of extracting 

the helilim by heat was' abandoned, and a method 

of fusion and ~olution, whi~h permitted coinplete extraction of helium, was used. Thorium 

66 Strutt, R. J., Helium and radioactivity in rare and co.mmon minerals: 

Roy. Soc. Lo~don Proc., scr. A, vol. SO, p. 572, 1908; Tho accumulation 

of helium in geologic timo: Idem, vol. ~1, p. 272, 1908; vol. 83, p. 96, 1909; 

vot. 84, p. 194, 1910. · 
44 

Mineral. 

- HELIUM:..BEARING NATURAL GAS. 

· Helium content of certain minerals. 

[Helium extracted by heat, except as otherwise noted.] 

Locality. 

Rare-earth minerals: 

Pitchblende a .................. Joachimsthal, Austria ......................... ~. 

Samarskite a ................... North Carolina .................................. . Cyrtolite a .................... _ Llano County, Tex .............................. . S1pilite a ....•••................ Little Friar Mountain, Va ....................... . Euxenite-a ..................... Arendal, Norway ......................... _ .... . · Eudialite ..................... Greenland ........................ : ............ . Gadolinite. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hitteroe, Norway ....................... · ........ . Keilhauite ...................... Alve, Norway ........................... · ...... . Niobite ....................... Haddam, Conn ................................. . 

~~~n~:~::::.::::::::::::::::::: ~~~~aa~~~-s~~d.~~-·.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Fluorite ........................ Ivigtut, Greenland ...... ~ ...................... . Ore minerals and native elements: · Galena ........................ Nenthead, Cumberland, England ....... ,._ ....... . Cinnabar ........... ~ .......... Almaden, Spain ................................ . Bornite ....................... Cornwall, England ............................. . Stibnite ........................ New South Wales .............................. . Sphalerite...................... Wrexham, Denbigh, Wales ...................... . Tin pyrites .................... Cornwall, England ............................. . Iron (meteoric) ................ Meteorite of Augusta County, Va ................ . Graphite ...................... Borrodaile, Cumberland, England ............... . Hematite ..................... Cumberland, England .. · ........................ . Hematite b •••••••••••••••••••• Frizington, Cumberland, England ................ . Hematite b ••••••••••••••••••.. County Antrim, Ireland ........................ . Limonite b •••••••••••••••••••••• Forest of Dean, Gloucestershire, England .......•• Cassiterite ................ · ...... St. Aust!'lll, Cornwall, England ................... . Wolframite .•................... Illogan, Cornwall, England ....... , .............. . Vanadinite ..................... Dumfries, Scotland ............................ . Miscellaneous: 

Barite .. · ..................... . Celestite .....•.•.............. Calcite .......•••.............. Quartz ........•................ Flint. (~om chalk) ...... , ..... . Garn1ente .................... . Beryl c ...................... · .. Beryl ........................ . Phosphatized shark teeth b • •••• 

. Phosphatic nodules b •••••••••• 

Phosphatic limestone b ••••••••• • 

St. Be~s; Cumberland, England .................. . Zate, Gloucestershire, England ..... , ............ . Cumberland, England .......... " ............... . Ilfracombe, Devonshire, England ............... . Brandon, Norfolk, England ..... · ................. . 

~~~~~h,"}{:ii:: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 

Chester, Pa ................. ~ ................... . 

~~~~~~-i3~ci£~;ci~hir~: -:E~gi~d".·.:: .: ::::::::::::::I 

Chirbury, Shropshire, England .................. . 

a Method of extracting helium not stated. b Helium extracted by dissolving mineral. c Helium extracted by fusion and solution. 

Helium (cubic UsOs(grams .ulillimeters per 

per gram)'.· lOOgrams). 

107 73.5 

1,500 10.3 

1,150 3.67 

590 2.86 

730 2.84 

1. 46 3. 9 X1o-3 

10.5 4. 2 xi0-2 

16.3 1. 4 x1o-1 

3.60 3. o xi0-2 

1.16 4. 5 x10-a 

1. 26 9. 3 X1o-3 

27.00 4. 9 X10-4 

.0007 9.0 X10-6 

.0 

.12 3. 2 x10-a 

.007 1. 3 x1o-4 

.0007 7. o xi0-5 

.0046 3.1 xi0-5 

<.0016 7. 8 X1Q-6 

.04 1.1 x10-a 

.07 1. 57X10-3 

.16 1. 28xiO-a 

.012 2. 64X10-4 

.15 10.3 x1o-4 

.04 3. 9 X10-4 

1.16 1. 05X10-2 

.0 

.0008 4.4 X10-4 

.0004 2. 6 X10-4 

<.0006 2. 2 xHr5 

.0012 2. 31X1o-6 

.0002 1.33X10-4 

.0027 

12.8 1. 4.X10-4 

6.69 2. 2" x1o-3 

. 0017 2. 48X1o-2 

. 021 5. 83X1o-3 

. 056 7. 90X10-4 

was· also determined, so as to permit calculation qf the ratio between helium and both the 

elements that generate it. In the table on 

page 45 the figures under the heading ''Total 

equivalent U30 8 " are obtained by adding the 

quantity of U30 8 and 0.203 times the quantity 

of Th02 , the assumption being that 1 gram of 

Th02 is equivalent to 0.203 gram of U30 8 .• so 

far as heliU.m generation is concerned, and the 

helium ratio . is obtained by dividing. tl].e 

helium in cubic centimeters per gram by the 

total equivalent uranium oxide. 

Reserving for discussion below the significance 

of the helium ratio .as an indicat~on of the age 

of minerals, we may note here that a great 

va~ety of minerals contain helium and that in 

general its presence appears to be explained 

by the presence of uranium or thorium. The 

proportion of helium is therefore not characteristic of any mineral species but is generally 

very different in different specimens.67 In 

pitchblende, however, the quantity of helium 

is generally very low in proportion to that of 

uranium, the ratio in the Joachimsthal variety 

being only 0.146, and on the other hand there 

are cert~in minerals in which the quantity of 

helium is far greater than can be explained by 

the uranium or thorium present. The beryls, 

for example, are generally very rich in helium 

01 Piutti, A., Sur Ies mineraux nonradioactifs contenant de I'Mlium: 

LeRadium, vol. 7, pp.146, 178,1910. Debieme, A., Experiencesdiverses 

sur Ia production de l'Mlimn: Annales phys., vol. 2, p. 478, 1914. • 
• 

OCCURRENCE OF HELIUM IN -MINERALS AND IN OTHER GASES. 45 

and very poor in the radio-elements, the ratio. In this connection it may be noted · that 

in the Acworth beryl being 9,140. Piutti Valentiner 71 examined blue rock salt and 

examined 26 beryls and other glucinum-bearing reported 0.13 cubic centimeter of helium per 100 

minerals that contained no uranium or thorium· grams, as compared with Strutt's figure of 

and found helium in varying quantities in all 0.0233 cubic centimeter per· 100 grams in the 

of them. 68 ordinary variety. · 

Helium, uranium, and thorium content of zircon, sphene, and thorianite.a 

Content per gram or mineral. 

.Minernl. Geologic nge. Locniity • Total Helium 

Helium (cuhic UaOa Th02 equh·alent ratio. 

centimeter (grams X (grams X U30a 

X10-4). I0-4). lQ-4). (grams X 

1Q-4). 

Zircon ........... 'rertiary ....... Vesuvius ............... <0.4 38.0 . ........... .......... <0.01 

Do ......... ..... do .......... Expailly, Auvergne, 2.12 3.72 0.0 3.72 . 57 

France. 

Do .......•. Paleozoic ...... Green River, N.C ...... 225.0 12.9. 30.1 19.0 13.4 

Do ......... ..... do .......... Kimberley, South 323.0 10.8 L32 11.1 29.2 

Africa. 

Do ....•.... Ancient ....... Ceton ................. 283.0 10.1 4.0 10.9 26.0 

l)o ......... Archean ........ Se astopol, Ontario .... 114.0 1.83 . 92 2.02 56. 6 

Sphene ......... ..... do ........ Cold Spring, N. Y ..... 101.0 L87 4.23 2. 73 37.0 

Do ......•.. ..•. ·.do ........ Renfrew County, On- 94.8 4.30 1. 98 4.70 20. 2 

tario. 

Do ......... . • • • . do ..•..... ..... do .......•.......... 176.0 1.72 4.82 2.70 65.0 

Do ......... ..•.. do .......... 33.6 . 772 4.73 1.73 19.4 

Do ......... ..... do ........ Twederstrand, Norway. ..... do .. ~ .............. • 45.4 . 921 . 920 1.11 40. 8 

Do ......... ..... do ....••.. Arendal, Norway ....... 123.0 2.46 4.34 3.34 . 36.8 

Thorianite ....... .•... do ........ Ceylon ................. 93,000.0 2,450.0 6,544.0 3,.780. 0 24. 6 

J)o .......•. ..... do ........ ..... do ................. 78,000.0 1,310.0 7,265.0 2,785.0 27. 9 

a Strutt, H..·J., 'rho accumulation ofholium in geological time: Hoy. Soc. London: Proc., ser. A, vol. 83, p. 298, 1909; vol. 84, p. 194, 1910. 

Another group of helium-bearing minerals 

that are poor in radioactive substances are the 

potash salts. Potassium is indeed radioactive 

itself, but so fa;r as known it emits no alpha 

rays and therefore does not generate helium.60 

Strutt 70 examined a number of the Stassfurt 

potash minerals and found abnormally large 

quantities of helium in some and yery small 

quantities in others. I-Iis quantitative results' 

are given in the following table: 

Helium conte.nt of some Stas~furt salts. 

Helium Helium 

(cubic mil- U30a (grams (cubic con- limctcrs timctcrs 

per 100 per 100 grams). 

grams). Pif3~ 

Halite (N aCl) ............. 0. 0233. 1.1 x10-o 3.3 

Sylvite (KCl) ............. . 55 2.15X10-o 256.0 

C~rnal!ite ~KM5Cl:~.6H 0). .151 3. 23X10-o 47.0 

Kiesente ( 1gS 4.H20) ... . 0179 6. 47X10-5 . 277 

68 Piutti, A., L'olio uci mincrali di glucinio: R. Accad. Lincei Atti, 

.vol. 22, pt. 1, pp. 140, 671, 1913. · 

cro Campbell, Norman, Tho beta rays from potassium: Cambridge 

Pl1ilos. Soc. Proc., vol. 14, pt. 2, p. 211, 1907. 

To Strutt, H.. J., On helium in saliuo minerals, and its probable connection with potnssium: Roy. Soc. London Proc., scr. A, vol. 81, p. 278, 1908. 

HELIUM CONTENT OF ROCKS. 

Co~paratively few determinations of the 

helium content of rocks have been made, and 

most of the minerals examined for helium are 

n"ot important as rock-forming varieties. Ram-

. say and Travers,72 in their early research on the 

distribution of helium, examined gneiss, lava 

from Iceland, serpentine, and blue clay from 

Kimberley, South Africa, with negativ~ results. 

Gautier, in his classic investigation of the composition of gases in rocks,73 reports that helium 

was never found except in spectroscopic 

traces, though the gases of many rocks are 

rich in nitrogen and in argon. Strutt, how~ 

ever, examined four igneous rocks and found 

the proportions of helium, argon, and uranium 

oxide shown in the table on page 46.74 

71 Valcntincr, Siegfried, Heliumgchalt im blaucn Steinsalz: Kali, 

vol. 6, pp. 1-3, 1912. . 

72 Ramsay, William, and Travers, M. W., The gascoils constituents of 

certain mineral substances and waters: Proc. Hoy. Soc. London, vols 

60, p. 442, 1897. 

.1s Gautier, A., Produits gazeux d6gag6s par Ia chaleur de quelquerochcsign6cs: Compt. H.end., vol. 132, p. 58, 1901; Sur !'existence d'azo 

turcs, argonurcs, ars6niurcs et iodures da.IlB les roches cristalliniennes 

Idem, p. 932. · 

74 Strutt, H.. J., Helium and radioactivity in raro and common minerals: Hoy. Soc. London Proc., ser. A, vol. 80, p. 586, 1908. 
46 HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 

Helium, argon, and uranium oxide in igneous rocks. 

Rock. Locality. 

Helium Argon (cubic mil- (cubic mil- UaOa (grams. per Iimeters limeters 100 grams). 

per gram). per gram). 

Granite .............. ,·. . . . . . Corn wall, Englund ............................. . Diorite.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mount Sorrel, Leicestershire, England ... · ....... . 0.029 

. 005 

0.010 

. 016. 

8. 7 X 10----4 

2.0 X 10----4 

Phonolite................... Trafrain Law, Hacldingtonshire, England ....... . . 0086 

. 0019 . 013 Basalt.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ireland ........................................ . . 0025 

Strutt used red heat in extracting the heliun1 

from these rocks, and it may therefore be presumed that the proportions shown in the table 

are only about half the true values. Strutt 

reports that limestone and gypsum generally 

contain very little if any helium. 

TIME CALCULATIONS BASED ON HELIUM CONTENT. 

As the radio-elements in minerals are continually breaking down and emitting helium 

at a constant rate, it is obvious that the ratio 

of helium to uranium and thorium should be 

greater in ancient minerals than in recent ones, 

and all of Strutt's later work on helium in 

minerals was designed to investigate this relation between helium ratio and age. His 

work.on limestones, phosphatic rocks, and iron 

ores of diverse ages yielded results of negative 

value in this conn~ction, for the increase of the 

helium ratio with age proved to be highly 

irregular. Practically all the sphenes he examined were of ... Archean age and showed divergent ratios, but a series of zircons ·yielded more 

concordant results, the helium ratio increasing 

from 0.01 in a Tertiary variety to 56.6 in an 

Archean variety. (See p. 45.) Strutt then 

attempted to determine experimentally · the 

rate at which helium is 'produced and, having 

obtained a :figure in close agreement with that 

obtained by calculation,75 declared· the helium 

·ratio to be a reliable index of the antiquity of 

minerals and therefore a measure of the length 

of geologic time: (See table,. p .. 45.) . On this 

basis Strutt concluded that the Archean sphene 

of Renfrew County, Ontario, is 710,000,000 

years old. 

It will be observed that this far-reaching 

conclusion involves three assumptions-(a) that 

the rate .of decay of the radio-elements is invariable; (b) that all the helium generated in 

the mineral has been retained by it during 

1~ Strutt, R. J., Measurements of the rate at which helium is produced 

~n thorianite and pitchblende, with a minimum estimate of their antiquity: Roy. Soc. London Proc., ser. A, vol. 84, p. 379, 1910. 

geologic time; and (c) that the mineral contained n~ heliun1 at the outset and ·has since 

absorbed none from extraneous sources. A 

corollary of the general theory which n1akes it 

of interest in connection with the origin of 

helium il). natural gas is the tacit assumption 

that all helium is. of radioactive origin. 

(a) The rates of decay of the radio-elements 

have been measured by a number of observers, 

and although the adopted figures are still subject to modification as n1ore data become 

available, there seems little likelihood of extensive ch~nge. The law of decay is unaffected 

by such variations in temperature and pressure as can be produced in the laboratory, 

though its constancy under the temperatures 

and pressures existing in the earth is debatable. (Seep. 12.) Moreover, it is obvious that 

the law of decay has been measured only for a 

period of a few years, whereas its ·application 

to the age of minerals involves extrapolating 

it to millions or. billions of years. 

(b) Strutt 76 has shown that there is a rapid 

leakage of heliwn from minerals and that 

weathered or water-worn 1ninerals probably 

contain only a part of the heliun1 that has been 

generated i"n them. The n1ere fact that enormous volumes of helium are found in natural 

hydrocarbon gas and in other gases of course 

also indicates that helium is migratory. The 

escape of helium, then, may result in greatly 

de~reasing the helium ratio and thus the apparent age of a mineral. 

(c) As helium is a widely distributed element and is foun~ in volcanic and hot-spring 

gases, it is not unreasonable to ·suppose that 

helium is occluded or dissolved in igneous 

magmas and that when crystallization begins 

some of the helium enters into the forming 

minerals ju.st as nitrogen, argon, hydrogen, and 

other gases do. 77 The quantity so .occluded 

76 Strutt, R. J., The leakage of helium from radioactive minerals: 

Roy. Soc. London Proc., scr. A, vol. 82, p. 166, 1909. 

11 See the papers by Gautier and Chamberlain cited on pp. 43, 45, 51. 

• 

• 
• 

OCCURRENCE O:E' HELIUM IN MINERALS AND IN OTHER GASES. '47 

might be very small in proportion to that later 

ge~1erated in the 1nineral by radioactivity, but 

it also appears possible for helium to enter the 

mineral after its formation ancl thus still further to increase its apparent age. Jaquerod 

and Perrot 78 have sho'Yfl. that quartz absorbs 

recognized· that the general evidence afforded 

by the distribution of helium in minerals suggests, with several outstanding exceptions, 

that the ·helium is a product of radioactivity. 

HELIUM IN MINE GASES. . 

helium at a measurable rate even at so low a Apparently helium has been sought for in 

temperature as 220° C., and Piutti 79 found only a few mine gases, but it has been identithat ce1;tain other fused salts and minerals also fied in the fire dam·p of several coal mines in 

absorb it at n1oderate temperatures. The very no~thern France and Belgium, and in the gas 

comn1on presence of helium in beryls·, in quan- escaping in a potash mine near Stassfurt, Gertities far larger than can be accounted for by many. As the gas escaping in many mines is 

the radio-elements present, is probably to be known to be high in nitrogen, 81 however, it 

explained in this way, and it is very possible appears probable that helium is a constituent 

that the helium in potassium minerals has also ·of many mine gases. 

entered from some extraneous source. One of the first exhaustive studies of mine 

If minerals under some conditions give .up gases was made in 1896 by Schloesing, 82 who 

heliun1 and under others absorb it, the writer discovered the presence of argpn in the . fire 

believes that little reliance can be placed on damp of French coal mines. In 1911 l\1oureu 

the helium ratio as a basis for age calculations. and Lepape 83 examined gas from the same 

The widely divergent ratios obtained by Strutt mines and determined the proportions of hefor minerals of the same geologic age and even lium, xenon, neon,· krypton, and argon. The 

from the same locality certainly indicate that mutual proportions 'of the rare gases were 

disturbing factors have affected the ratio, and ·found to approximate their proportiops in the 

·there is every reason to believe that these fac- atmosphere (see p. 16), but the helium varied 

tors may have been additive, increasing the greq,tly, as shown in the following table: 

Cmnposition of coal gases. 

Lievin, France. Anzin, France. Lens, Franc?. .Mons, Belgium. F~~~~~f~~· 

Carbon dioxide ................................ .. 

~ft~~~~~~-~~~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Argon, with traces of krypton and xenon ......... . Helium, with tracet3 of neon ...................... . 

0. 5 

97.03 

2.41 

. 04 

. . 013 

0.16 

97.92 

l. 85 

. 021 

. 044 

0.0 

98. 15 

l. 81 

. 0307 

. 0003 

Trace. 

99.()0 

.. 32 

. 003 

. 050 

2.80 

95.09 

2.06 

. 021 

. 027 

apparent age, as well as subtractive. Attempts 

have also been made to .compute age by the 

ratio of uranium to lead in minerals, but they 

need not be discussed here.80 

Although the attempt to calculate the age of 

minerals in years from the helium ratio appears 

to be scarcely warranted, it is nevertheless 

78 Jaqucrod, A., and Perrot, F. L., Sur l'omploi clo l'helium coinme 

substance thormometriquo ot sur sa diffusion a travers la silice: Compt. 

Rend., vol. 139, p. 789, 1904. 

7DPiutti, Arnaldo, Absorption of helium by rocks and minerals [abstract]: Chern. Soc. Jour., vol. 100, pt. 2, p. 88, 1911. 

so Holmes, Arthur, 1'he assoCiation of load \\ith uranium in rock minorals and its application to tho measurement of geologic time: Roy. Soc. 

London Proc., ser . .A, vol. 85, p. 248, 1911; Radioactivity and the measurement of geologic time: Geologists Assoc. Proc., vol. 26, pt. 5, p. 289, 

1015. Barrell, Joseph, Rhythms and tho measurement of geologic time; 

Geol. Soc. America Bull., vol. 28, p. 745, 1917. For criticisms of this 

method, soc Boeker; G. F., Relations of radioactivity to cosmogony and 

geology: Geol. Soc. America Bull., vql. 19, p. 134, 1908; Isostasy and 

radioactivity: Idem, vol. 26, p. 171,1915. Clarke, F. W., The data of 

goocbomistry, 4th ed.: U. S. Geol. Survey Bull. 695, pp. 312-3~5, 1920. 

Although the percentages of helium in these 

gases are small, the total volumes involved are 

considerable; according to the authors, the 

mine at Anzin emits about 4,380 cubic meters 

a year, and tpat at Frankenholz 3,650 cubic 

m~ters a year. In order to ascertain whether 

or not the helium is a direct product of radioactivity, Moureu and Lepape then tested the 

gases for radium emanation but found that 

they were not measurably radioactive. Ex81 For compilations of analyses of mine gases, sec Cady, H. P., and McFarland, D. F., The composition of natural gas, with special study of 

tho constituents of Kansas gases: Kansas· Univ. Gcol. Survey, vol. 9, 

p. 286, 1908. Darton, N.H., Occurrence of explosive gases in coal mines: 

Bur. Mines Bull. 72, 1915. 

82 Schloesing, Th., fiis, Sur Ia composition du grisou: Compt. Rend., 

vol. 122, p. 398, 1896; Etude sur !'azote ct l'argon du grisou: Idem, vol. 

123, p. 233, 1896. 

sa Moureu, Charles, and Lcpape, A., Les gaz mres des grisous: Com pt. 

Rend., vol. 153, p. 847, 1911. 
48 HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 

amination of the radium and thorium content I the gases accumulating in the tunnels or drifts 

. of the coal itself yielded the following results: 84 at the mineral springs of Baden. The hel~um 

Relation between helium content of gas and radioactivity of coat. 

Lievin. Anzin. Lens. Mons. Fran.k:cnholz. 

Helium (with traces of neon) in g:ttl ..... per cent .. 0.013 0. 0-14 0.0003 0.050 0.027 

Radium in coal ....... grams 10-12 per gram of coal .. <.02. <.01 . 97 . 04 <.01 

Thorium in coal. ...•• grams 10-li per gram of coaL. ............... <.01 . 33 . 0:3· . 02 

It will be noted at once that the proportion 

of helium in the gas bears no relation to the 

proportions of radium and thorium in the coal. 

The Lens coal is by far the most radioactive, 

and the Lens gas is by far the poorest in helium, 

in fact, the arrangement of the coals in order 

of radioactivity is almost exactly the reverse 

of the arrangement of the gases in order of 

helium content. The authors cited calculate 

that the helium emitted by the Frankenholz 

mine in the last 20 years represents all that 

would be generated by 33,000,000,000 tons of 

such coal in a period of 100,000,000 years. As 

there is undoubtedly a great deal more helium 

still occluded in the unmined coal, they: conclude that only a small part of the helium is 

being generated directly by radioactive processes and that most of it is fossil helium. 

In a salt mine at Leopoldshall, near Stassfurt, a flow of combustible gas was" encountered 

which according to Erdmann 85 proved to have 

the following composition:· 

Hydrogen ........................... 83. 6 

Methane~ ... _-_........................ 4. 4 

Nitrogen and argon ................... 11. 8 

Helium, with some neon............. .17 

This gas had been flowing for four and a half 

years, and during that time, it is calculated, J 2 

cubic meters of helium had escaped. In Erdmann's opiniqn the helium is generated by the 

decay of a local deposit of radium in the salt 

mass and is not an indication of the radioactivity of potassium. 

The gas escaping in the Elkton mine, Cripple Creek, Colo., contains 76.8 per cent of nitrogen and 1.5 per cent of argon, but spectroscopic 

examination of the argon residue apparently 

failed to disclose the presence of helium.86 

~n this connection may be considered some 

~nalyses of gases of a somewhat different type, 

84 Moureu, Charles, and Lepape, A., Helium des grisous et radioactivite 

des houilles: Compt. Rend., vol. 158, p. 598, 1914. 85 Erdmann, Ernst, Uber heliumhaltige Gase der deutschen Kalilager: 

Deutsche chem. Gesell. Ber., vol. 43, pt. 1, p. 777 1910. · 86 Lindgren, Waldemar, and Ransome, F. L.,' Geology and gold deposits of the Cripple Creek district, Colo.: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 

54, pp. 252-270, 1906. . . . 

n 

content and radioactivity of these gases, as determined by Sieveking and Lautenschlager,87 

are as follows: · 

Helium content and radioactivity of the Stollengase of Baden. 

Kirchenstollen, Baden-Baden ...... . Murquellstollen, Baden-Baden ...... . Markgrafenstollen, Badenweiler .... . B ii ttq uellenstollen, Baden-Baden ... . Hauptstollen, Baden-Baden ......•... Ursprungstollen, Baden-Baden .••.•. Deckershof. .........•...•.•••••••... 

Helium Activity 

( (voltper cent)_~ . stunden). 

0.015 

.004 

. 004 

. 003 

.001 

. 001 

. 0002 

3,200 

2,000 

900 

4,770 

470 

459 

500 

It will be noted that the helium content of 

these gases appears to bear a vague relation to 

their radioactivity, though the most active gas 

stands fourth in order of helium content. 

HELIUM IN THE GASES OF MINERAL SPRINGS. 

Within a few months after helium was discovered it was identified by Kayser 88 in the 

gas emitted by the springs at Wildbad, in the 

Black Forest, ·and in the course of the same 

year its presence in the springs at Cauterets, in 

the Pyrenees, was announced by Bouchard and 

by Kellas and Ramsay. Since that time he7 

lium has been detected in the gases of a great 

many European mineral springs, some of which 

emit several thousand_liters of helium yearly. 

By far the most extensive investigations of 

the occurrence of the rare elements in mineralspr-ing gases are those of Moureu and his collaborators, who found that the proportions of 

argon, ·krypton, and xenon in all gases approximate their proportions in the atmosphere, 

whereas the percentages of helium are very 

irregular. (See p. 16.) In order to investigate the relation between helium and radioactivity Moureu· determined the ;radium ema87 Sieveking, H., and Lautenschlager, t.,. Uber Helium "in Thcrmalquellen und Erdgasen·: Physikal. Zeitschr., vol. 13, pt. 2, p. 1043, 1012. 88 Kayser, H., Note on helium and argon: Chem. News, vol. 72, p. 89, 

Aug. 23, 1895. 

• 
• 

OCCURR-ENCE OF HELIUM IN MINERALS AND IN OTHER GASES. 49 

nation in a great many gases but found that no 

direct relation exists, except in so far as all the 

gases examined contain at least traces of both 

helimn and the radio-elements. This is clearly 

brought out in the following table, which presents 

a summary of numerous papers by Moureu: 89 

s9 M:oureu, Charles, Recherches sur lcs gaz rares des sources thcrmalcs: 

Sor. chim. France Dull. 9, 4th ser., xxv pp., 1911. 

Iieliu·m, content and radioactivity of the gases of mineral springs. 

[After M:oureu. Localities in France except as otherwise noted.] 

-

Constituents of gas (per cent). 

JJOCality. Spring. 

Carbon Com busdioxide. Oxygen. tible gas. Nitrogen. Argon. 

Aix-les-Bains ............... Soufre ............ 4.00 0.0 Trace. 94. 79 1. 18 

])o ................... Alun ............. (a) (a) (a) (a) 1. 153 

Aix-les-Thermes .......... Viguerie .. ~ ....... . 0 . 0 0.0 98.45 1. 453 

Baclgastein, Austria ........ Gratenbi.iker ..... Trace. 1. 40. (?) !:l 97.25 1. 181 Bagneres-d~-l~igorre ....... Salies ........... 3. 14 Trace. 95.49 1. 322 

Bagneres-cle-Luchon ........ Bordeu No. 1. .... . 33 .0 98. 275 l. 306 

])o .... · ............... Bordeu No.2 ..... . 85 .0 1. 30 96.45 1. 25 

J)o ................... Ferras ........... .0 Trace. 2.40 96.085 1. 23 

])o ................... Pre No.)_ ......... Trace. .0 6.0 92.40 1. 316 

l)o ................... Saule No.2 ...... Trace. .0 3. 58· 94.826 1.271 

Bains-les-Bains ........... Savonneuse ....... Trace. 4. 69 (?) .·o 94.()7 1.042 

llom·bon-l'Archam baul t .... Thermal ......... 49.81 .2 Trace. 48. 96 . 45 

Bombon-Lancy ............ Lymbe ........... 2. 8 2. 2 (?~ (a) 91. 96 1. 20 

])o ................... Reine ............. Trace. .9 (? .0 96. 1 1. 15 

Bussang ................... Demoiselles ...... 82. 71 Trace. Trace. 16. 72 . 242 

Caldellas, Portugal.. ....... Carvalho ......... .0 2.44 

g~ ~=l 96. 40 1. 143 

Cambo .................... ................... .0 . 76 98. 49 (a) 

Cautercts ................. Bois Vieux ...... Trace. Trace. 98. 48 1.418 

l)o ................... Cesar ..... · ........ Trace. :o .0 98. 55 1. 275 

J)o ................... Mauhourat ....... .0 .0 

~~~ 98.47 1. 49 

Do ................... Des illufs ........ . 60 Trace. 97. 76 1. 581 

Do ................... Raillere .......... .0 .0 Trace. 98.508 1. 377 

Chtttel-Guyon ............. Gubler ........... 97.4 . 54 (?) (a~ 2.036 . 02337 

Dax ...................... Nehe ............. 1.3 1.0 (a 96. 26• 1. 2226 

J)o ................... Trou des Pauvres. 1. 9 .7 .0 96. 20 1. 195 

Eaux-Bonues .............. Vieille ....... ." ... .0 .0 

~:~ 98. 28 1. 157 

Eaux-Chaudes .............. Esquirette ....... .0 .0 98. 57 1. 29 

G risr:)~ ... ~ ~ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Ys ............... 1. 15 .0 Trace. 95.5 1. 18 

No.2 ............ 2. 7 7. 5 (?) Trace. 88. 77 1.02588 

La. Bourboulc .............. Choussy ........... 94. 5 Trace. . 05 5. 34 .10 l~n. Chaldette ............... . Us.dl~d~~~---·.: ~:::: 2. 75 .0 Trace. 95. 17 1.31 ]~amu.lou .......... · ........ 99.5 (a) (a) (a) ( a) 

~~~~~~~~K:::::::::::::::::::: Des Recollets ..... .5 .0 Trace. 98. 12 l. 3654 

Bain-des-Dames .. . 83 Trace. (a) 97. 15 1. 28 

])o ................... Grand Balli ....... 1. 6 .0 .0 96. 36 1. 305 

l\{ai7.i8t·es ................. Romaine .......... 1. 7 .0 

~:~ 91.46 . 92 

Ivlon t-Dor6 ................ Des Chanteurs .... 99. 39 . 168 (?) . 436 (a) 

Nn.ncy .................... Pare Sainte-Marie 1. 75 .0 .0 95. 36 1. 29 

Neris ..................... Cesar ............. 11. 86 .0 

~:l 86. 29 . 88 

Ogeu ...................... Peyre ............ 'rrace. 11.0 87. 92 

Pn.nticosa, Spain ........... Si.-Augustin ..... .2 1. 6 97 ~~~ Plom biercs ................ Crucifix .......... }.'race. 3. 30 g~ .0 95. 14 1. 369 

l)o ................... Des Capucins ..... 1.0 8. 90 

~:l 88.65 1. 414 

l)o ................... Vauquelin ....... Trace. Trace. 98. 15 1. 643 

Do ................... No.3 ............ 'rra.ce . .". 4. 0 94.505 1. 375 

])o ................... No.5 ............ l. 58 1. 47 (?) .0 95. 32 1. 547 

Pougues-Sain t-1Ager ....... ................................. 98. 6 (a) .0 (a) . 013 

Roya.t. ................... Cesar ............. 99.5 . 102 (?) 

~:l . 393 (a) 

St.-Honore ................ Crevu.sse ........... 2. 20 .0 95. 76 l. 147 

Salins-Mou tiers ............. .............................. 41.50 Trace. 57.83 ~ 446 

Su.ntenay (C6te-d'Or) ...... Lithium ......... .................. ................. ................ .. ............... .. ........... :no ................... Carnot ............ ................. ............... .. ........... .. .......... . .............. :no ................... Fontaine Salee ... ............... ............ ............ .. ........... . ........... ~)~, Belgium ............. 'l'onnelet ........ 84. 25 . 175 (a) 15. 296 . 215 

4. 15 Trace. Trace. 93. 98 . 938 

~r~~r~ -~ : : : : : : ~ : : : : : : : : :·:: . rids. c"ei~~ti;;s· ... · ~ ~ 84. 5 . 05 

("l 15.07 . 302 

Chomel. ......... 99. 834 Trace. 

.~ .162 . 0027 

])o ................... Grande Grille .... 99. 47 . 00008 . 51 . 0172 

l)o ................... H6pital.. ......... 98. 65 .152 1. 20 (a~ J)o ................... Mesdames ....... 98. 2 . 08 (a) 1. 72 (a 

a Not determined. b Not sought f:;r. 

10135°-20-4 

Helium. 

0.03 

. 037 

. 097 

.169 

. 048 

. 089 

.15 

. 285 

. 284 

. 323 

.198 

. 58 

1.84 

1. 75 

. 328 

. 017 

(a-) 

.102 

.165 

. 04 

. 059 

.115 

·. 00063 

. 0174 

. 005 

. 563 

.140 

2. 18 

. 00412 

. 01 

. 77 

(a) 

. 014.6 

. 74 

. 735 

5. 92 

(a) 

·1. 60 

. 97 

~~~ . 201 

. 036 

. 207 

.120 

. 104 

. 002 

(b) 

. 893 

. 224 

10. 16 

9. 97 

8.40 

. 064 

. 932 

:123 

. 0015 

. 0018 

~~r 

Radium 

emanation 

(milli- gram-minutcs per 10 liters). 

(a) 

3. 52 

2. 32 

79.2 

2.32 

18. 36 

14. 43 

4. 19 

10. 23 

9.42 

3. 52 

. 17 

2.06 

~:~ 3. 64 

(a) 

< . 66 

< . 66 

< . 66 

< . 66 

< . 66 

< . 20 

. 56 

(a) 

< . 66 

< . 66 

3. 38 

4.415 

22 

12. 8 

< . 66 

< .1 

1. 24 

. 50 

1.48 

< . 66 

. 46 

. 92 

< . 66 

~:~ 4.62 

11. 8 

10. 74 

6. 16 

< . 20 

< . 66 

< . 20 

. 66 

................. 

................ 

.. ............... 

< . 20 

.14 

. 21 

. 56 

. 04 

. 01 

.10 

7 

6 

0 

1 

9 

5 
50 HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 

. l\1oureu points out the total lack of propor·-

tionali ty between radioactivity and the helium 

content of these gases and concludes that only a 

small fraction of . the helium is now being 

generated by the decay of radium and that 

the greater part is fossil helium. As shown in 

the following table the volume of helium given 

off annually by some of the richer springs is 

considerable; Moureu calculates, for example, 

that the output of the Carnot Spring, at 

Santenay, represents, all the helium that 

would be given off in a year by 91 tons of 

radium, or by 500,000,000 tons of pitchblende 

or thorianite. It. is very evident, therefore, 

that the helium of these springs is not being 

generated by radioactivity as fast as it is being,' 

emitted, ·and that it represents the leakage 

from a great store of underground helium, 

which may have been generated during geologic time by the radio-elements or may represent primordial helium that has had no connection with radioactivity. 

Volumes of helium emitted annually by some of the richer 

French mineral springs. a 

. Helium Volume of helium 

per year. Spring and locality. in gas (per Cubic cent). Liters. feet. 

Lithium (Santenay, Cote-d'Or) ... 10.·16 5,182 183 

Carnot (Santenay, Cote-d'Or) ..... 9.97 17,845 631 

Fontaine Salee (Santenay, Coted'Or) ......................... ·8.40 ..... -.. ····-· Romai!le (Ma~zieresL C?te-d'Or) .. 5.92 1,080 38· 

Ys (Gnsy, Saone-et- oue) ....... 2. 18 ········ ···--- Lymbe (Bourbon-Laney, Saoneet-Loire) .................... -- 1.84 10,074 356 

Cesar (Neris, Allier) ............... . 97 33,990 1,200 

Choussy (La Bourboule, Puy-deDome) .................... ;;-... . 01 3,048 108 

Although· a few of the helium-bearing 

spring gases cited in the foregoing tables 

consist chiefly of carbon dioxide, a great 

majority are rich in nitrogen, resembling in 

this respect the helium-bearing natural gases of 

the United States. The general occurrence of 

helium in Iii trogen-rich spring gases is shown in 

the following table, which has been compiled 

from a number of papers: 

Heli·um and argon in the gases of mineral spnngs. 

Locality. Nitrogen (per cent). Argon (per cent). 

1. Cauterets, Pyrenees, 

France.............. . . . . . • . . Present. 

2. Bagnole de l 'Orne, 

France............... 90. 5 4. 5 

3. Perchtoldsdorf, near Wien, Atistria. ·....... 93. 6 1. 04-1.11 

4. Voslau, near Wien, 

Austria.............. 91.0 1.18-1.26 

5. Allhusen well, Middleborough, England .......... . 6. Well, . Middleborough, 

England ............ _. _ .••• 7. Sulphur well, Harrogate, England ........ ___ • __ _ 

8. Reykjavik, Iceland .... _ ...•. 9. Botdeu. a Luchon, ' 

France.............. . 96. 22 

.4 

.5 

Present. 

1.14 

2.56 

Helium (per cent). 

Present. 

Trace. 

0.0 

.o 

.o 

.0 

.0 

10. Karls bad, Bohemia... . . . 40 .38 

11. Wiesb~den, Germany ................ _. . . Present. 

12. Gastein, Austria ..... : ........ _ 1. 29 . 64 

13. Uriage, !sere, France .. 93. 98 . 94 . 93 

14. La Aliseda, Spain...... 92. 6 1. 07 ....... .. 15. Bath, England .......... 95.3 . 74 . 03 

16. Wildbad, Black Forest, Germany ........ 97 Present. . 8 

17. Baden-Baden, Germany ................. ~. . 71 

1. Bouchard, Charles, Sur Ia pr~sence de !'argon ct de l'h6lium dans certaines eaux minerales: Compt. Rend.1 vol. 121, p. 392, 1895. 2. Bouchard, Charles, Sur Ia compositiOn des gaz qui se degagent des 

eaux minerales de Bagn9.le de 1' Orne: Idem, vol. 123, p. 9~9, 1896. 3. Bamberger, Max, Uber den Nachweis von Argon m dcm Gase einer .Quelle in Perchtoldsdorf bei Wien: Monatsh. Chemic, Band 17, · a Moureu, Char!es, and Lepape, A., Sur ~uelques m~langes gazeux p. 604, 1896. .. . naturels particulierement riches en helium; G1sements d'Mlium: Com pt. 4. Bamberger, M., and Landsiedl A., Uber den· Nachweis von Argon Rend. vol. 155, p. 197, 1912. in den Badequellen von Yoslau bei Wien: Idem1 vol.19, p. 1141 1898. 5, 6, 8. Kellast Alexander, and Ramsay, W11liam, Exammation of All these springs, except that at LaBour- gasesfromcertammineralwaters:Chem.News,vol.72,p.295,1895. 7. Ramsay, William, and Travers, M. W., Thegaseousconstituents.of boule, lie in a comparatively narrOW belt certainmineralsubstancesandwaters:Roy.Soc.LondonProc.,vol.60, 

All. h p; 442 1897. extending from Moulins, in Ier, nort east- 9. Moissan, Henri, Sur Ia presence de l'argon dans les gaz de Ia source 

hi Borden a Luchon et sur Ia presence du soufre libre dans l'eau sulfureuse ward to Vesoul, in Haute-Sa6ne; and in t 's de Ia grotto et dans les vapeurs de humage: Compt. Rend., vol. 135, 

I h . hi h p. 1278, 1902. belt also tpere are SeVera Ot er sprmgs W C 10. Pesendorfer, F., Zusammensetzung des dem Karls bad Sprudel entstromenden Gases: Chern. Zeitung, vol. 29, p. ~59, 1905. furnish gas containip.g more than 0.5 per Cent 11. Henrich, Ferd., Untersuchungen fiber die Thermalquellen von Wiesbaden und deren Radioaktivitii.t: Physikal. Zeitschr., vol. 8, p. 112, helium, such as those at Lu."Ceuil, St. Honore, 1907. .. 12. Ewers P., Uber das Vorkommen von Argon und Helium in den and Bourbon-!' Archambault. This areal dis- Gasteiner Thermalquellen: Physikal. Zeitschr., vol. 7, p. 225, 1906 .. 13. Masso!, M. G., Sur Ia composition chimique des gaz spontan6s de tribution of the helium probably has a signifi- · Ia source thermo-minerale d'Uriage (Isere): Compt. Rend., vol. 151, 

I . . . p~ 1124 1910. . . . cance which special geo ogiC examinatiOns 14. Diaz de Rada, F., Analyse der aus dem Quellwasser von "La · · ·b h rf 1 f th' Aliseda"sich entwickelnden Gase: Chern. Zeitung, vol. 36, p. 688,1912. might disclose ut t e su ace geo ogy o IS (Abstract.j . . ' . 15. Ramsay, William, Report on the mineral waters of Bath: Chern region as shown on the geologic map of France, News, vol.105, p. 131_, 1912. .. · 1 • , 16, 17. Sievekmg, tl., and Lautenschlli.ger, L., Uber Helium in Thorsuggests no explanatiOn. I malquellen und Erdgasen: Physikal. Zeitschr., vol. 13, p. 1043, 192 . 

.. 

• 
• 

OCCURRENCE OF HELIUM IN MINERALS AND IN OTHER =GASES. 51 

An examination of sea water and of the water 

of the Seine for heliun1 was made by Troost 

and Ouvrard, 90 who ~·eport that it is present 

only in the faintest traces. 

HELIUM IN VOLCANIC AND FUMAROLE GASES. 

l)nfortunately the earlier classic researches 

on the composition of volcanic gases-those 

of Bunsen, De,-rille and Leblanc, and Fouque-. 

gas of tlie solfatara of Pozzuoli (Campi Flegrei, 

near Naples) and in several other· Vesuvius 

gases, as well as in the hydrocarbon gases of 

Salsomaggiore and Bagni della Poretta, in 

northern Italy. 92 The following table shows 

some of the analyses .made by these authors, 

as well as a later analysis of t4e Larderello gas 

made by Porlezza and Norzi, 93 and· an analysis 

of Vesuvius gas by Gautier :

94 

Analyses of gases ofltalianfumaroles. 

[Percent.) 

2 3 4 5 

Hydrogen ::.ulr.•hidc .............................. . Carbon dioxide ....... ·

0

• ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 

. 2. 0000 1.13 ............. 92.2000 10.73 96.52 

~~;~~~~~}:::::::::::::::::::::: :.::: :·:::::::::::: 21&~~~~;::: .-.-.-.·. ~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 

fr~1i~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :·: :'::::::: 

2.070 

92.800 

2.600 

1. 400 

. 050 

1. 048 

. 021 

. 010 

2.000 

92.000 

2.400 

1.900 

. 200 

1. 455 

. 029 

. 014 

2.4500 ............ .015 

1. 7800 12.00 .12 

.1800 .40 . 46 

1.3500 74.23 2.87 . 0245 } . 0155. 1.51 .028 

99.999 99.998 100.0000 100.00 100.013 

1-2. Gas from different .Parts of the boric acid soffione of Larderello. Analysis by Nasini, Anderlini, and Salvadori. 

3. Same. Later analysts by Porlezza and Norzi. 4. Gas from boiling spring at Monte Irone Abano. Analysis by Nasini, Anderlini and Salvadori. 

5. Gas from olcl fumarole at..Agnano, near Naples, representing Vesuvius gas. Anaiysis by A. Gautier; helium determined by Charles Moureu. 

were n1ade before helium was discovered, and 

as most of the recent in'-restigations deal .only 

with the more abundarit constituents of volcanic emanations, the available data on the 

distribution of helium in such gases are meager. 

The gases emitted by the boiling springs of 

Iceland, which are indirect manifesta.tions of . 

volcanic activity, have been investigated by 

Thorkelsson,05 from whose valuable paper the 

following analyses are cited: 

Analyses of gas emitted by the hot springs of Iceland. 

(Percent.] 

Sprin~. err •. N2. A. He. 

Reykir.No. 5 .. · ................. · .................................................. . 98.34 1. 61 0.0146 

Hveravellir No.2 ............... ·..... 2. 8 79. 5 . . . . . . . . . 0. 9 ........ . 16.5 . 294 .0050 

Hvernvellir No. 25................... . . . . . . . . . 77.8 . . . . . . . . . 1. 0 0. 2 20.6 . 441 . 0063 

Gral'farbakki No. 1............... .. .. . . .. . .. . . ti. 4 . . . . . . . . . . 8 1. 1 90.0 1. 68 . 0104 

IJauga:nts No.1..................... . . . . . . . . . . • . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 .•....•.. Heykjafoss No. L .............. ·...... . . . . . . . . . 27. 0 2. 5 . 2 . 0 

97.4 1.93 . 0104 

67.9 1.36. . 0103 

Hengill No. 1........................ 11. 0 73.4 13. 5 . 3 ........ . Hengill No.~-....................... 11. 2 67.0 17. 2 . 6 ..•...... 1.8 . 011 . 0006 

The p:~;esence of helium in I tali an fumarole 

gases was established in 1898 by N asini, Anderlini, and SalYadori, who found 0.014 per eent 

of helium in the ga.S emitted by the boric acid 

soffione of Larderello (Tuscany), and a smaller 

proportion in the gas of Monte Irone, Abano. 91 

The same authors later detected helium in the 

oo Troost, L., and Ouvrard, L., Stir l'origine do l'argon et de l'h~lium 

dans lcs gaz cl~gag~s par certaines eaux sulfureuses: Compt. Rend., vol. 

121, p. 798, 1895. . 

ot Nusini, R., Anderlini, F., and Salvadori, R., Ricerche sulle emannzioni torrostro italiane: Gazz. chim. ital., vol. 28, pp. 81-153, 1898. 

3.9 .088 .0020 

Moissan96 examined seYeral samples of gas 

from the fumaroles of Mont Pelee, Martinique, 

but reported no helium in one sample and 

92 Idem, vol. 36, pt. 1, p. 429, 1966. 

93 Porlczza, C., ancl Norzi, G., Nuovi studi sui gas dei soffione·bomciferi di Larderollo: R. Accad. Lincei Atti, 5th ser., vol. 20, pt. 2, p. 338, 

1911. 

94 Gautier, Armand, Observations sur Ia nature et l'origino des gaz qui 

formant les fumerolles volcaniquos ou qui sortent clos crateres des anciens 

volcans: Compt. Rend., vol.149, p. 84, 1909. · 

~ Thorkelsson, Thorkell, The hot springs of Iceland: Acad. roy. sci. 

et let. Danemark M~m., 7th sor., vol. 8, pp. 181-264, 1910. 

oo M:oissali, Henri, Sur Ia pr~scnce do 1 'argon, del 'oxyde de carbone ot 

des carbures d'hyclrogeno dans lcs gaz des fumorolles du Mont Pel6 h. -I a 

Martinique: Compt. Rend., vol. 135, p. 1085, 1902. 
52 HELIUM-BEARING ~ATURAL GAS. 

apparently did not look for it in the others. I been calculated roughly by Jeans 3 and are 

Grossman, 97 however, found traces of helium given in .the following table:· 

Proportions of the atmospheric gases at various. levels in the upper atmosphere. 

[The base of the upper atmosphere i<> taken at 10.5 kilometers above the earth's surface.] 

Number of molecules per cubic centimeter at height z (in kilometers). 

Molecular Gas. weight. Z=O ,_,0 I Z=SO Z=160 Z=SOO 

Hydrogen .......... 2 10X1013 8X1013 430X1011 182X.1011 3X1010 

Helium ........... 4 4X1013 2. 6X1013 73X10 11 13X1011 106 

Neon ............. 20 12. 5X1013 1.4X1013 0. 3Xl011 0. 5X107 0 

Nitrogen .......... 28 780, 600X1013 42, 900X1013 520X10n 35X107 0 

Oxygen ............ 32 210, OOOX1013 7, OOOX1013 . 25X~0 11 0. 3X107 0 

Argon ............. 40 9, 400X1013 

Krypton ........... 83 0. 5X1013 

Xenon ............. 130 0. 06X1013 

1X1019 

in the gas contained in lava from Mont Pelee, 

but none in several lavas from Vesuvius and 

other localities. Day and Shepherd 98 state 

that the gases of Kilauea examined by them 

contain no helium, argon, or other rare gases. 

HELIUM IN THE ATMOSPHERE. 

139X1013 0. 04X10 11 102 0 

109 0 0 0 

105 0 0 0 

5X1017 1X1014 2X1013 3X1010 

At a height of 80 kilometers (50 miles) some 

of the heavier gases disappear entirely, and 

helium, instead of being the si.~th constituent 

in order of al;mndance, is outranked only by 

hydrogen and nitrogen. At a height of 160 

kilometers (100 miles) the atmosphere consists 

chiefiy of hydrogen and helium, the other constituents beingpresentonlyin small proportions. 

C. E. Van Qrstrand has constru.cted a curve 

from the fo.regoing figures and has computed 

the relative volumes of helium in the concentric 

According to the latest determination by 

Sir William Ramsay 99 the atmosphere near the 

earth's surface contains 1 part of helium in 

2.;1:5,300 parts by volume, or about 0.0004 per 

cent. This is the figure generally accepted, zones of the at~osphere, as follows: 

though according to Claude 1 the percentage is Proport·ionR of heb:um 1~n the atmosphere at different levels 

0.0005. Joly 2 has calculated that the atmos- above the earth's swfw:e. 

phere up to a height of 8 kilometers contains, if (Number of molecules per ~¥b~~O~~Jtimeter at earth's surface, 

homogeneous, 16 X 10 14 cubic meters of helium. 

Although there are a few experimental data 

on the composition of the air several miles 

above the earth, :it is generally believed that 

the atmosphere consists of two layers-an inner 

adiabatic layer 8 or 10 kilometers high, which 

is practi<;ally homogeneous in composition, and 

an outer and much thicker isothermal layer, 

or layer in which the temperature is uniform 

and constant and in which the distribution of 

the gases is controlled by gravity. The theoHeight (kilometers). 

0- 2 

2- 4 

4-6 

6- 8 

8-10 

10-12 

12-14 

14-16 

Helium (mole- culesX1016 per 

cubic centimeter). 

2.000 

1;600 

1,280 

1,040_ 

870 

760 

700 

660 

Helium (moleHeight (kilo- culesx 1016 per meters). cubic centimeter). 

16-18 620 

18-30 3,3()0 

30-90 9,990 

90-170 3,440 

170-870 4,550 

30,870 

retical proportions of the several gases at From this figure Mr. Van Orstrand calculates 

various levels in the upper atmosphere have that the total mass of helium in the atmosphere 

--------------·----,_----.up to 870 kilometers is 11,456 X 106 tons, 97 Grossman, M., Analyse quantitative des gaz occlus dans les laves h' h · · 1 t t 1 1 

des dernieres eruptions de Ia Montagne Pelee et du Vesuve: Compt. w· lC lS eqUlVa en to a ota VO ume, at 

Rend., vol.148, p. 991, HJ09. standard temperature and pressure, Of about 9s Day,~- L., and Shepherd,~- S., Water and volcanic activity: Geol. 58,186 X 109 cubic meters. 

Soc. Amcnca Hull., vol. 24, p. 513, 1913. 

99 Ramsay, William, Tl!e gases of. the atmosphere, 4th ed., p. 257, 

London, 1915. · 

1 Claude, Georges, Sur la composition de I 'air atmospherique: Com pt. 

Rend., vol. 148, p. 1454, 1909. 

2 Joly, J., Radioactivity and geo_logy, p. 210, London, 1909. 

s Jeans, J. H., The dynamical theory. of gases, chap. 15, Cambridge, 

1916. Earlier calculations have been given by James Dewar. (Problems of the atmosphere: Roy. Inst. Great Britain Proc., vol. 17, 1902-

1904,p. 223) and by W. J. Humphreys(Distribution of gases in the atmosphere: Mount Weather Obs. Bull., vol. 2, p. 66, 1909). 

,~ 

• 
OCCURRENCE OF HELIUM IN MINERALS AND IN OTHER GASES. 53 

It has been argued by Stoney 4 that hydrogen. evolution of heat, their formation must have 

because of its lightness, ascends to the upper- been attended by the absorption· of heat and 

most levels of the atmosphere, and thence in therefore could have taken place only under 

pnrt escapes into space; and it has been sug- conditions. of great temperature and pressure. 

gested by both Ramsay 5 and Moureu 6 that the Similar arguments have been devel<;>ped by 

SaJne theory may apply to helium as well. Arrhenius and others. 10 If this View is acAccordi:ng to Jeans, however, the loss of hydro- cepted, the presence of helium and lead in' the 

gen frotn the earth's atmosphere is at present sun and the absence of their"cmnpotmd_s; 'llrii.-

so slow as to.be negligible, and there can there- nium and thqrium, are explained. Furtherfore be practically no loss of helium. A similar. more, it follows that if helium and lead combine 

conclusion is reached by Bryan.7 only under certain conditions there is in all 

COSMIC· HELIUM. 

probability a great deal of helium in the earth 

which has never entered into this combination 

and has had no connection ·with radioactivity 

and which inay thus be regarded as true primordial helium. 

INFERRED HELIUM. 

THE MEASUREMENT OF RADIOACTIVITY. 

The discovery of heliu.m in the solar chromosphere i~ 1868 was followed by its identification in the spectra of a great many stars, and 

it is now recognized that helium is one of the 

most prominent of cosmic elements. I-Ielium 

is abundant in the nebulae and is so .prominent 

in the hotter stars .of the Orion· type that these In addition .to the direct data on the distriare often designated the helium stars. bution of helium reviewed in the foregoing 

In contrast to helium, which is so prominent pages, it is evident that, as helium is formed in 

in the stars and nebulae, the radio-elements, so the decay of the radio-elements, each occurrence 

closely associated with helium on the earth, of radioac~ive material connotes the presence of 

are conspicuous by their absence. Dyson has helium. Early recognition of the extraordinary 

doubtfully reported the presence of radium in qualitieR of radium and of its geochemical sigthe solar chromosphere, and Giebeler believes nificance and therapeutic value led to the makthat he has detected radium and its emanation ing of extensive surveys of the distribution of 

in the spectrum of the new star Nova Gemino- radioactive materials in the earth's crust, and 

ruin 2, but despite the fact that radium is the data so gathered thus have an indirect 

easily recognized spectroscopically, other ob- bearing on the distribution of helium. 

servers have failed to confirm these results and Almost inconceivably minute quantities of 

report that radium is absent.s Similarly, ura- radium and its products may be accu;rately · d 1 · f h · measured by taking advantage of the fact that nnun an t 1onum, so ar as t e writer can h . 

learn, have not been detected in any of the t e rays em~tte.d. by these substa~ces have the 

celestial bodies though lead has been identified property of IOnizing the surrotmding gases and 

in the sun. ' · so makin~ t~e~ ca~rie~ of electricity. The ex-

'rhe prmninence of helium and the absence of tent o~ this IonizatiO~ Is ~easu:ed by means ~f 

uranimn and thorium in celestial bodies are ex- the el_ectroscope, ~vhiCh Is designed to permit 

l · db B I~ , · 9 . . • • accurate observatiOn of the rate of loss of po- p a1ne y ec ... er s view that uranmm Is to be t t' 1 f h 1 · ul t d t · f ld 1 f 

r:egarded ·as the unstable compound PbHe8 and e~l Ia 0 a c arge~ Ins a e s riJ.? 0 go . ~a : 

th · th d PbH h' h cliff exposed to a definite volume of air contmnmg 

ornun as e compoun. . ea, w Ic . .er_ the emanation. 'As each alpha ray emitted 

frmn other compounds chiefl.y In that.their d1s- a-1·ves ri'se to man thous d · d . . . o y an IOns per secon , IntegratiOn Is spontaneous and proceeds at a it is evident that measurements made in this 

fixed rate. As th~se ?~mpoun~s ar~ very way are incomparably more refined than those 

strongly endothermic, disintegrating with the obtainable by the most delicate chemical bal4 Stoney, Johnstone, Chem. News, vol. 71, p. 67, 1895. . ance or even by the spectroscope. Exceed- ~ RIUilsny, WilliiUil, op. cit., p. 265. .. ingly small quantities of helium may be recog- o Moureu, Cho.rlcs, Lcs g::tz thcrmnu.x: Rev. sci., 1914, p. 65. · d · t b f 11 7 Bryan, 0. H., 'l'hc ·kinetic theory of plo.nctary atmospheres: Roy. lliZe In a spec roscope, ut ar sma er quanSoc. London Philos. Tro.ns., vol.196, p. 1, 1900. tities of the elements that give rise to helium s Clarko,F. w., The data of geochemistry,4thed.: u.s. Oeol. Survey may be measured electrically. 

Bull. 605, p. 312, 1920. 9 Decker, 0. F., Relations of radioactivity to cosmogony and geology: 10 See Decker, 0. F., Isostasy and radioactivity: Oeol. Soc. America 

Gcol. Soc. America Bull., vol. 19, P: 113, 1908. Dull., vol. 26, p. 194, 1915. 
54 HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 

In practice sufficient time must. of course 

be allowed to permit the attainment of .equilibrium. If a rock is to ·be tested, it is first 

brought into solution and allowe<). to stand 

until the ·maximum quantity of emanation has 

accumulated-that is, until the rate of decay 

is equal to the rate of production. The gases 

are then removed by boiling and introduced 

into the electroscope, and the measurement of 

their ionizing power is easily recalculated into 

terms of radium itself. 

DISTRIBUTION OF THE RADIO-ELEMENTS. 

A great niany determinations. of radium in 

minerals, soils, rocks, and spring waters and in 

the ocean and atmosphere have been made, but 

as their bearing on the distribution of helium 

is indirect only a few representative measurements will be given here. 

Measurements of the. radioactivity of a 

number of minerals, made in connection with. 

determinations of their helium content, have 

been given on pages 44-45. It will be noted 

that many of the rare-earth minerals are rich 

in radium, as compared with ordinary rocks 

(discussed below:), and that practically all the 

minerals tested. contain some radium, though 

t4e silicates and the common metallic ore 

minerals are generally poor. 

The wide distribution of the radio-elements 

in terrestrial materials was discovered, in 1901 

by Elster and Geitel, who observed that the air 

in cellars and caves is markedly radioactive 

and who thereupon test~d a number of samples· 

of soil and clay.U They found that most of 

the samples they examined were distinctly radioactive, and later investigations have confirmed 

their results. Moore/2 for example, found the 

11 Elster, J., and Geitel, H., Sur la radioactivite de ]'atmosphere et du 

sol: Arch. sci:phys.nat., 4th scr., vol.17,p. 13,1904. Determinations 

of the radioactivity of many minerals, rocks, spring waters, etc.,·~vere 

made prior, to 1905, but the results were commonly expressed in arbitrary 

units and have little value for comparison. A good review of the work 

to 1905, with bibliography, is given by Georg v. d. Borne (Die radioaktiven Mineralien, Gesteine und Quellen: Jahrb. Radioaktivitiit u. 

· Electronik, Band 2, Heft 1, p. 77, 1905); 

u Moore, R. B., The radioactivity of some type soils of the United 

States: Jour. Ind. and Eng. Chemistry, vol. 6, p. 370, 1914. 

average emanation from· 14 type soils in the 

United States to be equivalent to 1.97 X 10-12 

grams of radium per gram of soil, and that of 

the subsoils to be equivalent to 1.52 X 10-12 

gramsP The average thorium emanation of 

five soils was found to represent 4 X 10-5 grams 

of thorium per gram of soil. Sanderson14 

examined 13 Minnesota soils and found 1.3 X 

10-13 to 8 X 10-13 grams of radium and 2.5 X 

10-6 to 7.1 X 10-a grams of thorium per cubic 

centimeter of soil. 

The first systematic survey of the distribution of radium in rocks was .made in 1906 

by R. J. Strutt. His results (as corrected by 

Eve and Mcintosh for the use of an erroneous 

constant) showed the average radium content 

of 28 igneous rocks from different parts of the 

world to be 1. 7 X 10-12 per gram of rock and 

that of 17 sediment~ry rocks to be 1.1 X 10-12 

gram. Joly, who shortly .afterward began a 

much more extensive survey, obtained results 

several times as large as Strutt's·, the disparity 

being apparently due to the use of different 

methods of bringing the specimens into solu-

_tion. As other investigators have obtained 

results approximating Strutt's, and as Joly's 

recent determinations are considerably lower 

than his earlier ones, it· seems probable that 

most of the earlier results should be rejected. 

The accompanying table shows the average 

radium content of groups of comparable rocks 

from all over the world, as determined by 

several investigators. Most ·of Joly's earlier 

determinations have been omitted. Although 

future work will undoubtedly modify the mean 

values somewhat, .a sufficient number of determinations have now been made to permit a fair 

estimate of the radium content of the earth's 

surface rocks. 

131.52X1o-u grams per gram equals one hundred and fifty-two trillionths of 1 per cent. The radium content of ordinary natural su bstancqs 

is of this order of magnitude. 

14 Sanderson, J. C., Radioactive content of certain Minnesota soils: 

Am. Jour. Sci., 4th ser., vol. 39, p. 391,1915. 
• 

• 

OCCURRENCE OF HELIUM IN .MINERALS AND IN OTHER GASES. 55 

Radium content of rocks. 

Rock. Locality. 

Radium Equiva-' Number (grams X lent value 

of speci- 10-1~ per of uranium Observer. mens. gram of (grams X 

rock). 10-:.). 

Igneous rocks: 

Granites and syenites...... Various ................ ~ .... . Gran~tes and porphyries.. . . Sub-Antarctic islands ....... ; 

Gramtes (Archean) ........ :Mysore, India ............... . lthyolites ....... _.' ......... Yellowstone Park, U.S. A .... . Obsiclian ............ ~ ......... do ...................... . 

10 3. 33 ..................... Strutt.a 

7 2. 1 ................ Farr and Florance. b 

16 1.5 .................. Smeeth and Watson. c 

4 2. 3 .................. Schlundt a.nd Moore.d 

2 1.9 .................... Do.d 

Nephelite rocks ............ Montreal, Canada ..... ·.· .... . Itecent volcanic rocks ..... Various ..................... . Various types.............. Sumatra .................... . Various t)1)eS: ............. · Borneo ..................... . Diorites and similar rocks.. Various ..................... . 

4 2. 16 .................. Eve and Mcintosh. e 

12 7. 1 .................... Joly./ 

10 1. 6 ................. Buchner.(! 

17 1. 7 .................. . Do.h 

7 1. 16 ................. Strutt.a 

Basic rocks ..................... do ...................... . 11 . 53 ................. Do.a 

Basalts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Deccan, India ...... , .... . Basic rocks (Archean) .... :. }:(ysore, India .. · ............. . Basalts.................... England ..................... . 

6 4.3 ................. Joly./ 

21 . 24 ............... Smeeth and Watson. c 

4 . 37 ............... Strutt.i 

Acidic rocks (composite Various ..................... . sample). 

Intermediate rocks (com- ..... do ...................... . 

86' 3.01 .................. Joly.i 

48 2.57 ................ Do.J 

posite sample). · Basic rocks (composite ..... do ........... · ........... . sample). 

31 1:28 ............... Do.J 

296 2. 3 0. 7 

Metamorphic rocks: 

Schist and gneiss......... . . Scotland ................... . Gneiss (composite sample) . Various ..................... . Schists <sedinientary) .......... do ...................... . Quartzite................. Dublin ...................... . Quartzite and g~aywacke .. Various ..................... . Slates and phyllites ............. do ...................... . 

3 5. 7 ................ Jolv.f 

14 2.1 .................. ·no.i 

9 1.1 ................. Fletcher.k 

2 .7 ................. Do:k9 1.5 .................. Do.k 

16 1.3 ................. Do.k 

53 1.7 0.5 

Sedimentary rocks: 

Sandstones (composite Various ..................... . sample). 

Sandstones ..................... do ...................... . 

39 1.5 .................. Joly.i 

24 1.5 ................. Fletcher.k . San~stones, slates, chalk, ..... do .... ~ ......... : ....... . 17 1. 1 ................ Strutt.a 

etc. 

Sla.tes and shales (compos- ..... do ...................... . ito sample). ' 

Sandstones and sandy ·Limburg .................... . shales. 

20 1. 5 . ............... Joly.i 

8 1. 7 .............. Buchner.h 

I.imestones andmru.·bles ... : Europe ..................... . ]~imestone, dolomite, chalk. Various ..................... . 10 1.-1 .................. Do.l 

24 .8 ............... Fletcher.k 

142 1.3 0.4 

1tfiscellaneous: 

Globigerina 007.C .. ·•..•••••• Atlantic and Pacific o~eans .... . Hadio1F.rian ooze. . . . . . . . . . Central Pacific Ocean ........ . 4 3.3 ................. Jolv.i 

2 13. 1 .................. ·Do. 

Hot-spring deposits ........ Yellowstone Park, U.S. A .... . Coal ................................................... . 29 2. 9 .................. f:ijchlundtand Moore.d 

1 0 ................. Fletcher." 

Do ....... ·. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Northern France ............ . 5 < . 23 ................. Moureu and Lepape.m 

n Strutt, R. J., On tho distribution of radium in tho earth's crust and tho earth's internal heat: Roy. Soc. London Proc., ser. A, vol. 77, p. 472, 1000; vol. 78; p. 150, 1900. :For corrected results see Eve1 A. S., and Mcintosh, D., The amount' of radium present in typical rocks in the im· 

modlnto neighborhood of Montreal: Pbilos. Mag., 6th ser., vo1. 14, p. 231,1907. · · · b l''nrr, C. C.,and Florance, D. C. H., On the radium content of certain igneous rocks from the Sub-Antarctic Islands of New Zealand: Philos. 

Mag., 6th ser., vol. 18, p. 812,1909. . c Smooth, ·w. :F.,and "atson, H. E., Tho radioactivity of Archean rocks .from the Mysore State, India: Philos. Mag., 6th ser., vol. 35, p. 206, 1918. . d Schlu.ndt, Herman, IUld Moore, R. B., Radioactivity of the thermal waters of Yellowstone National Park: U. S. Geol. Survey Bull. 395, 

pp. 25-20, 1000. . . • . e Evo, A. S., and Mcintosh, D., Tho amount of radium present in typical rocks in the immediate neighborhood of Montreal: Philos. Mag., 6th ser., vol. 14~ p. 231, 1907. 

I Joly J., ltadioactivity and geology, pp. 42-60, London, 1909. u .BUcfmer, E H., Investigations of tho radium content of.rock:s: K. Akad. Weten. Amsterdam Proc., vol. 13, pt. 1, p. 359, 1910. A BUchner, KH., idem, vol. 14, pt. 2, p. 1063, 1912 . I Strutt H.. J. On tho radium content of basalt: Roy. Soc. London Proc., scr. A., vol. 84, p. 377, 1910. 

J Joly I r., 'l'ho mdioactivity of terrestrial surface materials: Philos. Mag., 6th ser., vol. 24, p. 694, 1912. k Fletcher, A. L., On the radium content of secondary rocks: Philos. Mag., 6th ser., vol. 23, p. 270,1912. I BUchner, E. II., op. cit., vol. 1~ pt. 2, p. 818, 1911. · . · m .Mourou, C., and ;r.opape, A., .1:1.~llum des grisous et radioactiviM des houilles: Compt. Rend., vol. 158, p. 598, 1914. 
56 HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 

The figu,res given indicate that the' igneous ing plays an important part in reducing the 

rocks are distinctly richer in radium than the radium content. In this connection Joly 

sedimentary rocks, and that the metamor- cites a determination of a sample of sand from 

phosed varieties of both classes occupy, as the Arabian Desert which showed only· 0.4 X 

would be expected, an intermediate position. l0-12 gram of radium. 

Among the igneous rocks the acidic types are The distribution of thorium in the earth's 

notably the richest, and the intensive studies crust has until recently received little attenof Smeeth and Watson in the Mysore State tion, and few data regarding it are available. 

indicate that radium is distjinctly subject to The composite samples of igneous rocks made 

magmatic differentiation. Basic varieties are up by Joly and tested by him for radium have 

generally poor in radium; the only exceptions been examined for thorium by Poole, and these 

noted being the Deccan traps investigated by determination~, together with a number of 

Joly. Among sedimentary rocks the lime- others, are given in the accompanying table~ 

stones appear to be. somewhat poorer than the In general the distribution of thorium is similar 

·sandstones and shales, though the difference · to that of radium; the acidic igneous rocks are 

is not marked. The deep-sea deposits exam- richer than the basic, and the argillaceous sediined by Joly are exceptionally rich in radium. ments are richer than the. sandstones and far 

Hot-spring deposits appear in general to be richer than the limestones. 

· Thori·um content of rocks. 

Thorium 

Rock. Locality. 

Number (gram<> X 

ofspeci- 1()-5 per mens. gram of 

rock). 

Igneous rocks: 

Lav:;>.s, recent. ..................... Various ............................... . Granites, gneissic................... St.. Gothard tunneL .................• ~-. 

Acidic rocks, composite ............ Various ................................ . Intermediate rocks, composite ............ do ................................. - Basic rocks, composite ................... do ......................... -- .. -.. . 

8 1.6 

ll l. 85 

86 2.05 

48 1. 64 

56 . 56 

209 1.5 

Metamorphic rocks: 

Schists. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Gothard tunneL .................... . 21 l. 13 · Altered sediments ...................... do ......................... -...... . 19 . 77 

40 1.0 

Sedimentary rocks: · Calcareous rocks .................... Various ......................... -... ··· 34 <.07 Sandstone~; ............................... do ......................... -.. -···- 13 '54 

Ar::,rillaceous rocks ....................... do .............................. ··· 18 1. 14 

65 .5 

a Joly, J.J On the distribution of thorium in the earth's surface materials: Pbilos. Mag., vol. 18, p. 140, 1909. b Poole~_. J. H. J., '!'he average thorium content of the earth's crust: Philos. Mag., vo1: 29, p 483, 1915. c Joly, J ., The amount of thorium in sedimentary rocks: Philos. M:ag., vol. 20, pp. 125, 353, 1910. 

Observer. 

Joly.a 

Do.a 

Poole.b 

Do.b 

Do.b 

Joly.a 

Do.a 

Jolv.c · Do.c 

Doc 

somewhat radioactive, though Schlundt and 

Moore point out that probably only radium is 

deposited by the waters, and as it is not sustained by uranium, as in normal rock, its 

activity soon decreases, and .the amount remaining depends chiefly on the age of the 

deposit. The few specimens of coal examined are surprisingly -low in radium. The 

average radium content of rocks is considerably higher than that of the soils already referred to, a fact which indicates that weatherAs thorium is the parent of its series, whereas 

radium is simply an intermediate member of 

the uranium series, the figures cited give little 

idea of the relative importance of the two 

groups of radio-elements. As the ratio of 

radium in equilibrium with uranium is 3.4 X 

I0-7, the radium determinations may be calculated in terms of uranium and compared directly with the figures for thorium. The following table shows the thorium content of the 

four composite samples of igne~us rocks deter-

• 
• 

• 

OCCURRENCE OF HELIUM IN MINERALS AND IN OTHER GASES. 57 

mined by Poole and the uranium content of 

the same sampl0s calculated from the radium 

values obtained by Joly: 

Thori'wm, and 'l.traniurn content of igneous rock. 

[GmrnsXlO-~'> per gram ofrork.]· 

Thorium. Uranium. 

---------------------------------------------1---------------

G1·anites and acidic intrusive and 

volcanic rocks (86) ............... . Syenites, diorites, trachytes, and 

pol'phyries (48) ................. .. Basalts, gabbros, diabases, and no- rites (56) ........................ . J.,avas, Vt~suvitlS (7) ................ . 

2.05 

1. 64 

. 56 

2.36 

0.8~ 

. 78 

.38 

3.70 

Exclusi~ e of the lavas, the average thorium 

bon tent in the three groups is 1.42 X 10-s, 

wherefLS the average uranium content is about 

half that :figure, or 0.68 X 10-s. If the general 

uranium and 1.5 of thorium; for metamorphic 

rocks 0.5 of uranium·and 1.0 of thorium; and 

for sedimentary rocks 0.4 of uranium and 0.5 

of thorium. The average thorium content 

of all rocks therefore appears to be about 

twice as gn~at as the average uranium content, 

and it is very evident that thorium, which 

until recently was neglected entirely in geophysical calculations, .must be taken . into 

account. 15 

Determinations of the radioactivity of a 

great many spring waters have been made, 

chiefly in connection with therapeutic studies, 

but such measurements have little geochemical 

significance and only a few will be considered 

here. Ordinary springs of shallow ground 

water usually show only slight activity, but 

many hot springs or other deep-seated flows 

that are rich in the less common mineral 

Radioactivity of rnineral waters. 

Radium (gramsXIQ-11). 

Source. Location. Observer. 

Per liter of Per liter of water. gas. 

a904. 4 -- ........ Boltwood.b 

aSl. 3 ········· Do.b 

a27. 2 ............ Do.b 

a.SO. 5 ........... Moore and Schlundt.c 

144.0 .................. Schlundt an,d Moore. a 

Imperial Spring.. . . . . .. .. .. .. . Hot Springs, Ark ................. .. 

~~i~~~l:~~~~g.·.·.-.·.: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~~~~:::::::::::::::::: ~ :·: ~:: ~::: ~weet _Springs ................. S;veet Springs, Mo ................ .. Hot R1ver ..................... YellowstonePark .................. . 124.0 26.2 Do.d 

38.0 287:0 Do.d 

White Sulphur Spring .............. do ........................... .. Mushroom Pool. .................... do ............................ . 24.0 139.0 Do.a 

26.3 7.3 Do.a 

a5.0 .................. Do.e 

13.9 92; 256~ o· Ramsay./ 

0620.0 Mache.h 

0188.0 ............. Engler and Sieveking. i 

o96. 0 .............. Do. i 

u18. 3 043.6 Mache and Meyer. i 

u178. 4 o208. 0 Curie and Laborde.k 

o224. 0 b64. 0 Do.k 

9, 001.2 ........... Ishizu.l 

6. 6 .......... Do.l 

~~~~~hs~;~t~g·. ·::: ·:::: ~ ~ ~::::: ::::: ~~ ~:: ::::: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~: : : : ~: ~ ~::: ~ ~ ~ City well (deep) ................ Columbia, Mo ..................... . King's well. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bath, England ............... .' .... . Gmbenbii.ckerquelle ............ Gastein, Austria .................... . Eisenquelle .................... Karlsbad, Austria ................. . Murqueile..................... Baden-Baden, Ger~any ........... . Waldquelle. . . . . .. .. .. .. . .. . .. :M.arienbad, Austria ............... .. Vauquelin ..................... Plombieres, France ................. . D'Alun .................. ·.· .... .Aix-les-Bains, France .............. . Yunokubo ..................... Masutomi, Japan .................. . Furo-sen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beppa, Japan ................ : .... . 

a Originally stated in term<; of uranium. b Holtwood, B. B., On tho radioactive properties of the waters of the springs on tho Hot Springs Reservation, Hot Springs, Ark.: Am. Jour. 

Sci., 4th sor., vol. 20, p. 1~ Hl05. . · 

1905 ~ Moore, R. B., and S 1ltmdt, Herman, On the mdioactivity of some natural waters of Missouri: Am. Electrochem. Soc. Trans., vol. 8, p. 291, 

d Schlundt, Herman, and Moore, R. B., Radioactivity of the thermal waters of Yellowstone National Park: U. S. Geol. Survey Bull. 395, 

1909. . e Schlundt, Hormau,and Moore, R. B., Radi.oacti.vi.ti of some deep well and mineral waters: Jour. Phys. Chern., vol. !i, p. 320, 1905. 

I H.amsny William, Report oh tho mineral waters o Bath: Chern. News, vol.105, p. 133, 1912. o Originally s~ated in terms of electrostatic (Mache) units; here recalculated by tho use ofthefactor 1 gram radium =2.5X109 Mache units. II. Moohe, H., Uber die H.adioaktivi.tii.t der Gasteiner 'fhermen: K. Akad. Wi.ss. Wien Sitzungsber., vol. 113, Abt. 2 a, p. 1329, 1904 . l Engler, C.,and Si.ovoki.ng, :t=J:., Der Radioaktivititt der Mineralquellen: Chern. Zei.tung, vol. 31, p. 813, 1907. 

11\facho.t H., and Moyer, S., Uber die Radi.oaktivitii.t der Quellen der bobm.ischen Biidergruppe: K. Akad. Wi.ss. Wien Si.tzungsber., vol. 114, Abt. 2 a,p. o55, 1905. k Curto, P., and Laborde! A., Sur la radioactivite des gaz qui. proviennent de l'eau des sources thermales: Compt. Rend., vol. 142, p. 1462, 1906. I Ishizu, R., Tho minora springs of Japan, p. 164, Tokyo, 1915. 

averages of all uranium and thorium determinations given in the tables on pages 55-56 

are considered, the ratios are about the same. 

Computing the uranium values as before, we 

find (in grams X 10-s) for igneous rocks 

0. 7 constituents are highly radioactive. The 

above table contains measurements of the 

activity ~f some well-known mineral springs 

15Joly, J., Tho radioactivity of terrestrial surface materials: Philos. · 

Mag'., 6th ser., vol_. 24, p. 694, 1912. 
58 HELIUM-BEARING NAT;tJRAL GAS.· 

and suffices to show the average degree of 

activity of such flows. 16 The gas emitted by 

such springs is generally richer in radium 

emanation than the watersY 

The radioactivity of petroleum and natural 

gas has been investigated to some extent and is 

of particular interest in connection with the occurrence of helium in natural gas. The activity of petroleum was discoy-ered by.Burton, 18 

who .examined samples of oil from a well near 

Petrolia, Ontario, and his observations were 

soon confirmed by Himsted t 19 and by Elster 

and Geitel.20 Burton concluded that the activity of the oil was due to radium products 

and suggested that the oil might also contain 

radium itself. This was denied by Engler/1 

who examined many samples of European oils 

and found that although most fresh samples 

are active, those which have been kept for 

sorri~ years show no activity, indicating that the 

. effects are due to the emanation alone. Hurmuzescu 22 found the light oils of Rumania to 

be more active than the heavier ones. Himstedt observ~d that the emanation is much 

. more soluble in crude oil than in water, and 

Boyle 23 found that radium emanation is about 

50 times as soluble in refined petroleum oils 

as in water. Apparently, therefore, the 

activity of petroleum is due simply to its 

faculty of absorbing emanation from the surrounding rocks. ' · 

16 The papers cited in the table contain a great many more determina· 

tions than are here shown. Other measurements are given by Curie, 

M:me. P., Traite de radioactivite, vol. 2, p. 497, Paris, 1910; Sieveking 

and Lautenschlager, Uber Helium in Thermalquellen und Erdgasen; 

Physikal. Zeitschr., vol. 13, pt. 2, p.1043, 1912; M:ache, H., and M:eyer, 

S.,.UberdieRadioactivitii.tosterreichischerThermen:Physikal.Zeitschr., 

vol. 6, p. 692, 1905; Blanc, G. A., Radioactivity of mineral springs: 

Pluios. Mag., 6th ser., vol. 9, p. 148, 1905; Batelli, A., Occhialini, A., 

and Chella, S., Untersuchungen iiber Radioaktivitat: Physikal. Zeitschr., vol. 8, p. 65, 1907; Himstedt, F., Uber die radioaktive Emanation, 

der Wasser- und Olquellen: Physikal. Zeitschr., vol. 5, p. 210, 1904; 

Henrich, F., Untersuchungen iiber die Thermalquellen von Wiesbaden 

und deren Radioaktivitat: Physikal. Zeitschr., vol. 8, p. 112, 1907. 

11 See Schlundt, H., and Moore, R. B., 'Radioactivity of .the thermal 

waters of Yellowstone National Park: U. S. Geol. Survey Bull. 395, 

1909; Moureu, C., and Lepape, A., La radioactivite des sources thermales 

de Bagneres-de-Luchon: Compt. Rend., vol. 148, p. 834, 1909; Mache, 

H., and Meyer, S., op. cit. 

1a Burton, E. F., A radioactive gas from crude petroleum: Philos. 

Mag., 6th ser., vol. 8, p. 498, 1904; Uber ein a us Rohpetroleum gewonnenes 

radioaktives Gas: Physikal. Zeitschr., vol. 5, p. 511, 1904. 

19 Himstedt, F., Uber die radioaktive Emanation der Wasser- und 

Olquellen: Annalen der Physik, 4th ser., vol. 13, p. 573, 1904; Physikal. 

Zeitschr., vol. 5, p. 210, 1904. · 

2o Elster, J., and Geitel, H., Sur Ia radioactivite de !'atmosphere et du 

sol: Arch. sci. phy~. nat., 4th ser., vol. 17, p. 13, 1904. 

21 Engler, C., Beitrage zur Chemie und Physik der ErdOibildung: 

Petroleum Zeitschr., vol. 2, p. 849, 1907. 

22 Hurmuzescu, Dragomir, Sur la radioactivite du petrole: Cong. in· 

ternat. petrole, Bucharest, 1907, Com pt. rend., Mem., vol. 2,p. 771,1910. 

23 Boyle, R. W., Note on the solubility of radium emanation in liquids: 

Roy. Soc. Canada Trans., 3d ser., vol. 3, sec;· 3, p. 75, 1909. 

Unfortunately, most determinations of the 

radioactivity of oils are only qualitative or are 

expressed in arbitrary units, but the following 

are given in terms comparable to those used 

in the foregoing tables: 

Radioactivity of oil and gas from the Nishiyama field, Japan:a 

Well. 

R. 22, Takiya ........ ~ ............. . R. 7, Nagamine .................... . 

Radium (gramsX1(}12). 

Per liter Per liter 

of oil. of gas. 

166 

144 

35 

a Cite~ by Ishizu~ R., The mineral springs of Japan, p.189, Tokyo, 1915. 

The radioactivity of natural gas was first obs~rved by McLennan,24 who tested a number of 

samples from the W elland and Brantford districts in western Ontario. Gas from the Niagara rocks, at a depth of 500 ·feet, was more 

active than any other examined, and gas from 

the Medina rocks at 900 feet ranked next to the 

Niagara gas. Samples from the Clinton sand 

at 750 feet were less active than those from the 

Medina, and the least active were those from 

the Trep.ton limestone at a depth of 3,000 feet. 

McLennan's observations seem to show an 

irregular ; but pronounced decrease in radioactivity with increase in depth, which may 

be significant in eonnection with the usual 

decrease in. helium content with increase in 

depth, as described on pages 23-24. The radioactivity of a few samples of European natural 

gas, expressed in arbitrary units, is given on 

page 34. · 

·The radioactivity of the atmosphere itself, 

which was first observed by Elster and Geitel, 

has been studied by niany investigators.25 It. 

]las been found that both radium and thorium 

emanation are present in the atmosphere, but 

that the amount differs in different localities 

and also varies greatly in relation to meteorologic conditions. In order to eliminate. the 

meteorologic factors as· far as possible and 

measure the emanation itself, Eve and Satterly 

used qharcoal to absorb the emanation from a 

known quantity of air for a period of some 

hours or days, and Ashman condensed the 

24 McLennan, J. C., On the radioactivity of natural gas: Nature,.vol. 

70, p. 151, 1904. 

25 Elster, J., and Geitel, H.,op.cit. Wegener,Alfred, Untersuchungen 

ii ber die N atur der o bersten Atmospharenschichten: Physikal. Zeitschr., 

vql. 12, pt. 1, pp. 170, 214, 1911. Schenk, Richard, Radioaktive Eigenschaften der Luft, des Bodens und des Wassers in und um Halle: Jahrb. 

RadioaktiVitat u. Electronik, Band 2, Heft·!, p. 19, 1905. 

• 

• ·, 
• 

• 

OCCURRENCE OF HELIUM IN MINERALS AND IN _OTHER GASES. 59 

emanation directly by means of liquid air. The 

results are as follows: 

Radium enumation in the atmosphere. 

Locality. 

Montreal .... .' .................. . Cambridge ....................... . Chicago ........................ . 

Radium 

(grams X 10-12per 

cubw 

meter). 

Observer. 

60 Eve.a 

100 Satterly,b 

89 Ashman.c 

a l~ve, A. S., On tho amount of radium emanation in the atmosphere ncar tho earth's sw·faco: Phi los. M:ag.1 6th ser., vol. 16, p. 622, 1908. b Satterly, John, 1.'ho amount of radium emanation in the atmosphere: 

Phllos. ltfag., 6th sor., vol. 16, p. 5841 1908. c Ashman, G. C. A quantitative aetermination of the radium amana· tlonln tho atmosphere: Am. Jour. Sci., 4th ser., vol. 26, p. 119,.1908. 

TP,e mean of these determinations is 

83 X 10-12 grams of radium per cubic meter; 

and according to Rutherford,26 if it is assumed 

that this quantity is constant up to a height of 

10 kilometers, the quantity of radium necessary 

to keep up the supply is about .1 gram per 

square kilometer of the earth's surface. San-

. derson 27 found that the air drawn from deep 

in the soil at New Haven contains emanation 

equivalent to 2.4 X I0-13 grams of radium and 

1.35 X 10-6 grams of thorium per cubic centimeter. 

A number of measurements of the radium 

content of sea water have been made, but the 

results are not satisfactorily concordant. 

Joly,28 on the basis of 24 determinations, concluded that the average radium content is 

0.017 X J.0-12 grams per cubic centimeter, indicating a total oceanic content of 20,000 tons of 

radium, whereas Eve, 29 who examined six: 

samples from the Atlantic, obtained. an average 

value of only 0.0009 X 10-12 gram per gram. 

Joly,30 in a more recent calculation, has adopted 

the intermediate figure 0.004 X 10-12 gram of 

radium per cubic. centimeter of sea water, 

which he finds represents roughly the difference betweep. the total quantity of adium 

brought ·into the ocean by. the denudation of 

igneous rocks and the total quantities now 

found in se_dimentary rocks and oceanic' sediments. 

20 Rutherford, E., op. cit., p. 634. 

2~ Sanderson, J. C., The probable influence of the soil on local atmospheric radioactivity: Am. Jour. Sci., 4th ser., vol. 32, p. 169, 1911. 

2s Joly, J., Radioactivity and geology, p. 46, London, 1909; On the 

radium content of sea water: Philos. Mag., 6th ser., vol. 18, p. 396, 1909. 

19 Eve, A. S., On the amotmt of radium present in sea water: Philos. 

~ag., 6th scr., vol. 18, p. 102, 1909. 

~Joly, J., Radioactivity of terrestrial surface materials: Philos. Mag., 

Gth ser., vol. 24, p. 704,1912. · 

ESTIMATES OF HELIUM PRODUCTION. 

From the foregoing data oh the distribution 

of the radio-elements in the earth's crust it is 

possible to obtain a general idea as to the quantity of helium produced in. the normal course of 

radioactivity. Although the estimate is necessarily based on incomplete data, the value 

of the conClusions is enhanced by the fact that 

t~o entirely independent calculations· led to 

fairly concordant results. The first calculation 

given below. is based on the rate of loss of the. 

earth's heat, and the second on the observed 

distribu.tion of the radio-elements in the rocks. 

If the rocks in the interior of the earth contain as much radium as the surface materials, 

the heat so generated '~ould be ·many times 

as much as the earth gives off; hence it is necessary to assume also that most or all of the 

radium is concentrated in a comparatively thin 

surface layer, probably only 8 or 10 miles 

thick. Many authorities, however, believe 

that aJ.l the 'heat lost annually by the earth 

is compensated by radioactive processes, and 

this assumption furnishes a convenient basis 

for a calculation of the volume of helium so 

generated. 

The simplest calculation may be based on 

the common though erroneous assumption that 

radium and its immediate products are the 

only elements· concerned. If the average· 

geothermal gradient is taken to be 1° F. in 64 

feet, and the average conductivity of the rocks 

to be 0.0058, the amount of heat lost annually 

per square. centimeter of the earth's surface is 

41.4 calories.31 As 1 gram of radium yields 

134.4 calories an hour,32 or 1,177,344 calories 

a year, it is evident that there must. be 3.5 X 10-5 

gram of radium beneath each square centimeter to maintain this loss of heat. One 

gram of radium emits 158 cubic millimeters of 

helium a year; and. there are· 51 X 1017 square 

centimeters in the earth's surface. Then 

(3.5 X 10-5

) X 158 X (51 X 1017 ) = 28,203 X 1012 

cubic millimeters of helium. That. is, 28.2 

million cubic meters of helium is produced annually by the decay of r~dium on the assump-· 

tion that the los·s of heat from the earth is compensated by that generated by radium. 

at This figure was adopted in 188~ by the committee on tmdergrotmd 

temperatures of the British Association for the Advancement of Science 

and according to C. E. Van Orstrand, who has made a careful study of 

geothermal gradients, the data that have since been gathered indicate 

that it is sufficiently near correct for the purposes of this calculation. 

as Rutherford, E., Radioactive substances and their radiations, p. 581, 

Cambridge, 1913. ' 
60 HELIUM-BEARiNG NATURAL GAS.· 

As some heat is generated by other members year per cubic mile. The surface of the earth 

of the uranium series, however, and as thorium is 1.97 X 108 square miles, and a layer 10 miles 

is even more widely distributed than uranium, deep contains about 19.7 x 108 cubic miles. 

it is obvi.ous that a more nearly correct result The total helium generated annually in this 

may be obtained if .all the radio-elements are layer is thus 8.98 X 108 ·cubic feet, or 25.4 

taken into account. As shown on page 57, the million cubic meters. 

average ratio of thorium to uranium in igneous If it is desired' to estimate the helium prorocks is about 2 to 1; .in other words, each aver- duced in a restricted field, where the sedimenage gram of radioactive material consists of tary rocks form.a layer about 1 mil-e thick, the 

two-thirds of a gram of thorium, in equilibrium average uranium value for a block 10 miles 

with its products, and one-third gram of ura- deep may be reduced to 0.67 X 10-5 gram and 

nium, also in equilibrium. Thorium in equi- the thorium value to 1.4 X 10-5 grams. On the 

librium .generates 2. 7 X 10~'> calories an hour, other hand, the density of the rocks may be 

and uranium. 7.7 X 10-5 calories an hour; 33 taken at 2.7, and the resulting figure is 0.465 

hence the average gram of radioactive mate- cubic foot of helium per year per cubic mile, 

rial generates 4.4 X 10-5 calories an hour, or which is only very slightly larger than the 

0.385 calories a year: If we take the loss of average figure derived above. .· 

heat from the earth at 41.4 calories per square . The foregoing estimates are all based partly 

centimeter, it is evident that there must be on assumptions and of course may be coh.sid107.5 grams of the thorium-uranium mixture erably in error. Becker,34 for example, mainbeneath each square centimeter, or 35.8 grams tains that only about 25 per cent of the heat 

of uranium and 71.6 grams of thorium. From lost by the earth is generated by radioactivity, 

the data given by Rutherford 33a it follows that and if his view is correct the first two estimates 

the helium generated by these quantities of ura- would be reduced to 7 or 8 million cubic meters .. 

nium· and thorium is 616 X 10-5 cubic milli- . Nevertheless, it seems safe to conclude that 

meters a year, which, multiplied· by the num- somewhere between 8 and 30 million cubic 

her of square centimeters in the earth's surface meters (282 to 1,060 million cubic feet) of he-

(51 X 1017), gives 31.4 million cubic meters of lium is generated annually by radioactive prohelium per year. cesses. The bearing of this fact on the origin 

The second method of calculation is based of the helium in natural gas is discussed on 

on the observed quantity of the radio-elements page 62. 

in surface rocks and on the assumptimi that 

THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF HELIUM IN these elements occur only in an outer layer of NATURAL GAS. 

the earth's crust 10 miles thick. In such a 

calculation the metamorphic and sedimentary 

rocks and the oceanic sediments in sea water 

REVIEW OF DATA. 

In the foregoing pages the writer has enmay be neglected, the average value for the deavored to describe the geologic conditions igneous rocks alone being used. From the under which helium-bearing natural gas octables on pages 56 and 57 the average value of curs, and to review rather fully the occurrence 

. uranium per gram of igneous rock is seen to be f h 1

. · th t · I · d t . o e 1um In o er ma erm s, In or er o per0·7 X 10-fi gram and that of thorium 1.5 X Io·-5 mit the reader to form his own judgment as to 

grams. One gram of uranium in equilibrium h 1 · 1 h f 

em{ts 11 X 10-5 cubic millimeters of helium a t e most p ausib e ypothesis o the source 

and origin of the helium. At present this is 

year, and 1 gram of thorium 3.1 X io-10 cubic all that can be done, for although the data 

millimeters; hence the total helium generated are abundant in some respects, they are deper year per gram of rock is 12.4 X 10-5 cubic ficient in others and the evidence is not wholly 

millimeters. Assuming the average density concordant. It is apparent that considerable 

of the outer layer of the earth's crust to be 2.5, geochemical work will be necessary before any 

we may compute that the weight of this layer one hypothesis can be accepted; and it is the 

is 10,421,615 X 109 grams per cubic mile, from writer's. purpose, in discussing the several 

which it follows that 12,923 cubic centimeters hypotheses in the following pages, to point 

or ?.456 cubic foot of helium is generated per 

aa Rutherford, E., op. cit., p. 583. 33n Idem, p. 560. 

s• Becker, G. F., Isostasy and radioactivity: Geol. Soc. America 

Bull., vol. 26, p. 201, 1915. 

•· 
• 

THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF HELIUM IN NATURAL GAS. 61 

out some of the ways "in which t~e p·ro blem 

can best be attacked. 

Before proceeding to the discussion of 

hypotheses it will be convenient to present, by 

way .of recapitulation, the data ah·eady given. 

REVIEW OF THE OCCURRENCES OF HELIUM. 

I. OBSERVED OccURRENCES. 

A. IN NATURAL GAS. 

(a) United States.-Helium constitutes from 0.5 to 2 per 

cent of certain nitrogen-rich natmal gases in Kansas, 

Oklahoma, and Texas and occurs in smaller proportions 

in tho gases of many other districts. The gases richest in 

helium arc confined to strata of upper and middle Pennsylvanian age and occur close to the surface, the helium 

content usually decreasing with increasing depth. . Gases 

containing from 0.25 to 0.5 per cent of helium occur in the 

lower Pennsylvn.nian of the Mid-Continent area, in the 

Mississippian and Silurian of Ohio, and in the Cretaceous 

of :Montana, although in general the pre-Pennsylvanian 

gases are poor in helium~ and the Cretaceous and Tertiary 

gases carry only traces or none at all. The helium-rich 

areas arc not marked by igneous activity or by unusual 

structural conditions. There is no evidence as to whether 

or not the rocks in these distric:ts are abnormally radioactive. 

(b) Europe.-: .... nelium has been detected in European 

natural gas in proportions as great as 0.38 per cent. The 

dchest gas was found in a deep test hole in Alsace, probably 

in lower Mesozoic strata; the Tertiary gas in this locality is 

very poor i~ helium, and the Tertiary gases of·G~rmany, 

Austria, Italy, and Transylvania are also poor. The 

helium content of these gases appears to. vary roughly as 

their radioactivity. 

B. IN 1\UNEH.ALS AND ROCKS. 

A great variety of minerals have been found to contain 

at least traces of helium, and apparently only a few 

species a.rc helium-free. Minerals rich in the radio-elements may contain several times their own volume of 

helium; ordinary rock-forming minerals are usually poor. 

In general the amount of helium in a mineral is proportional to its radioactivity and increases with age, indicating that the helium has been generated by the decay of 

the radio-elements; but certain l)eryls contain far more 

helium than can be explained in this way. 

C. IN l\IINE GASES. 

The gases of French and Belgian coa.l mines carry 

helium, and though the proportion is small the total 

volume emitted yearly is large. The coals themselve~:~ 

areverypooriu the radio-elements, and helium is evidently 

not being generated in the coal nearly as fast as it is being 

emitted .. There is, therefore, no evidence to connect the 

helium in the mine gases with radioactivity. 

D. IN 1\UNERAI.-SPRING GASES. 

The gases of many European ~neral springs contain 

helium in proportj.ons as great as 10 per cent. The volmnes of helium ·emitted yearly by some of the springs 

represent all the helium that would be generated yea.rly 

by many tons of radium; hence tliis helium, like that in 

mine gases, probably represents the overflow or leakage 

of a great underground accumulation. Furthermore, the 

proportion of helium in the gases bears no relation to their 

radioactivity. 

E. IN VOLCANIC GASES. 

Small proportions of helium occur in the gases of certain Italian fumaroles, where there is np evidence to connect it directly with radioactivity. 

F. IN THE ATMOSPHERE. 

Helium constitutes 0.0004 per cent of the atm~sphere 

near the earth's sur.face. In the upper atmosphere its 

proportion is greater. 

G. IN CELESTIAJ, BODIES. 

Helium'is a prominent constituent of the solar chromosphere and of many nebulae and stars, though the radioelements have not been i~entified with certainty in any 

celestial bodies. 

II. INFERRED OccuRRENCES. 

As the radio-elements generate helium in the course of 

their spontaneous disintegratio~, each occurrence of radioactive material connotes the presence of helium; but the 

radio-elements, because of their activity, can be detected 

in far smaller quantities than can the helium to which· 

they give rise. The radio-elements are very widely disseminated through terrestrial materials, being present in 

minute proportions in practically all minerals and rocks, · · 

in the atmosphere, and in river and ocean water. Most 

petroleum and natural gas apparently contains some radium emanation. The helium generated by the radioelements disseminated through ordinary rocks amounts to 

almost half a cubic foot per year per cubic mile of rock. 

From the foregoing evidence certain broad 

conclusions may be drawn as follows: 

1. The helium:in most minerals is probably of radioactive origin; and as the radio-elements are disseminated 

through ordinary rocks in proportions sufficient to generate 

large volumes of helium in the course of a few million year;, 

much of· the helium in rocks has probably also originated 

through radioactivity. · 

2. As helium is very prominent in celestial bodies, 

whereas the radio-elements .are not, it is probable that 

helium can and does occur in the universe entirely apart 

from the radio-elements, and that these elements may be 

regarded as compounds of helium and lead which form only 

under certain conditions. Accordingly, much of the 

helium. in the earth may never have been associated with 

the radio-elements and may be primordial helium. 

As the volumes of helium in some mineral-spring a~d 

mine gases are so large that incredible quantities of the 

radio-elements would be necessary to generate the helium 

as fast as it is emitted, it is probable that there are great 

stores of helium undergmund, the leakage or overflow of 

which appears in the spring and mine gases. These stores 

of i'fo~sil" helium may be accumulations of the small vol-:-

umes liberated by the disintegration of radio-elements 

through geologic time or they may in large part be pri- , 
62 HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 

mordial. The helium in natural gas may therefore be primordial or it may havebeen liberated through the decay 

of the radio-elements. As a great volume of helium is contained in the atmosphere there is the third possibilitywhich is not concerned with the ultimate origin of the element-that the helium in natural gas has in some way been 

derived from the atmosphere. 

DERIVATIO~ THROUGH RADIOACTIVITY. 

FOSSIL HELIUM. 

Since it was discovered that the alpha rays 

given off by the radio-elements are helium atoms 

it has been tacitly assumed by most scientists 

that all helium is the product' of radioactivity. 

Even Moureu, who has plainly shoWn that the 

helium emitted by certain mineral springs can 

not be the product of contemporaneous radioactivity and who therefore regards it as' 'fossil" 

helium, apparently believes that this fossil 

h.elium is simply the accumulation of the small 

volumes of the gas liberated by the radioelements during geologic time. It was natural, 

the~efore, that Cady and McFarland, when 

they announced their discovery of helium in 

natural gas, should suggest that it originated 

in the decay of the minute quantities of radium 

disseminated through the rocks. 

It is obvious that the helium in natural gas 

presents a problem different from that of the 

helium given off by mineral springs, for the 

emission of gas by the springs is a natural phenomenon which has be~n proceeding at least for 

. many centuries; whereas the release of heljum 

·from the natural gas reservoir is artificial, its 

rate depending on the number of ·gas wells 

drilled. It would therefore be absurd to suppose that the supplies of heli~m in natu~al gas 

are being replenished underground as fast as 

they are brought to the surface, and it must be 

recognized at the. outset· that the helium in 

natural gas represents the accumulation of ages 

and is, .to use Moureu's term, fossil helium. 

DERIVATION FROM NORMALLY DISSEMINATED 

RADIO-ELEMENTS. 

In order to test the theory briefly suggested 

by Cady and McFarland, that the helium has 

been derived from the disintegration of the 

radio-elements disseminated in normal quantities through the rocks, an examination of 

conditions in the Petrolia field, in Texas, will 

be convenient. · According to independent estimates by E. W. Shaw and the writer (seep. 88), 

the Petrolia field originally contained about· 120 

billion cubic feet of natural gas, and as the per- · 

centage of helium in the gas is 0.93, the total 

helium must have been a little over 1" billion 

cubic feet. The producing area at PAtrolia is 

about 10 square miles, but the gas probably 

represents the accumulation from an arP.a c;>f 

about 25 square miles. Let us assume for the 

moment that the helium in the gas represents 

all the helium generated in this area to a depth 

of 4 miles beneath the gas sands-in other 

words, in a block of 100 cubic miles of rock. 

It has been shown (p. 60) that the radio-elements disseminated through a cubic mile of the 

normal or average rock yield, by their disintegration, about 0.456 cubic foot of helium a 

year. The annual production of helium in 100 

cubic miles is thus about 46 cubic feet, and the 

production in 25 million years would about 

equal the volume now found in the .Petrolia 

field. · 

Two objections to the validity ·of this calculation at once present themselves. In the 

first place the basic assumption made by 

Strutt and others who attempt to calculate the 

age of minerals from the helium ratio is that 

most of the helium generated in a mineral 

remains in that particular grail). or crystal 

during geoiogic ·time. The writer does not 

wholly agree with this view, for the mere existence of enormous accumulations of helium in 

natural gas in regions removed from unusual 

structural disturbances is sufficient to show 

that helium does migrate (unless, indeed, it is 

assumed that the helium has actually formed 

in the gas sands themselves); yet, on the other 

hand, if hel!um were free to leave the mineral 

as fast as it is formed and migrate upward, it is 

evident that the rocks near the surface everywhere would be saturated with helium. It is 

probable, therefore, that helium ordinarily 

does not migrate very far from the point of its 

origin and that little of the heli~ generated in 

the dense rocks several miles ·deep can have 

found its way into the gas sands. This difficulty might be lessened somewhat by assuming a shallower block of strata and a longer 

lapse of time, but it would still constitute a 

grave objection. · 

The other argument against this calculation 

is the self-evident one that normal conditions 

should bring about normal results-in other 

words, if the helium at Petrolia is supposed to 

• 
• 

THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF HELIUM IN NATURAL GAS. 63 

have been gen~rated by the radio-elements 

nornuilly distributed through the Tocks, why 

should not the same volumes of helium accumulate everywhere~ l\1ost natural gas cont!tins 

at least a trace of helium:, some of which has 

very probably been generated. in the normal 

course of radioactivity; but the· high percentage in the Petrolia gas, as well as in that of the 

Kansas :fields, plainly indicates special conditions of son1e kind. So far as known, the conditions of accumulation in the helium-rich gas 

fields are no more favorable than· in fields that 

produce· gas free from helium, nor are there 

any known fissures or channels along which the 

heliun1 could have risen from great depths. If 

helium is to be ascrib~d to radioactivity, therefore, it is necessary to ·postulate a local deposit 

of the· radio-elements in each helium-rich district. 

DERIVATION FROM LOCAL DEPOSITS. OF THE 

RADIO-ELEMENTS. 

·A.s 1 .ton of uranium in equilibrium yields 

about 1 cubic foot of helium a year, 40 million 

tons of uranium (or about 120 million tons of 

the Joachimsthal pitchblende) would yield in 

25 million years the total estimated volume of 

heliwn at Petrolia,. It is evident, however, that 

some of the helium would remain in the mineral 

grains in which it is formed, and that more 

would undoubtedly remain entangled ·in the 

rock close to the point of its origin; hence it is 

necessary to assume a deposit capable of genm·ating considerably more helium than the gas 

sands themselves actually contain. On the 

other hand, it does not appear necessary to 

adopt the extreme view held by Strutt, that 

practically all the helium remains in the particles in which it was formed-in fact, if this 

view is adopted, it must be assumed· that the 

helium has been generated in the gas sands. 

If it is supposed that only a half or a third of the 

helium generated has found its way into the gas 

sands, the size of the deposit that would have 

to be assumed at Petrolia is not incredibly 

large, and in all the other helium-bearing fields 

it would be smaller. 

There appear to be no great geologic difficulties in the way C?f assuming such deposits, 

aside, of course, from the fact that there is no 

direct evidence of their presence. In the Kansas area it may be supposed that a uranilim or 

thorium deposit existe~ in the old land mass 

from which the middle Pennsylvanian sediments were derived and that the debris from 

this ·deposit was laid down within a fairly small 

area. Monazite, for example, which is rich in 

thorium, is not uncommon as a minor constituent of clastic rocks ·and is locally abundant 

enough to form deposits of monazite sand. Or 

it might be supposed that uranium has since 

been introduced into the rocks by ascen~ing 

solutions and precipitated as the secondary. 

mine.rals carnotite or autli.nite. The carnotite. 

ores of Colorado occur in sedimentary rocks 

rich in organic matter, which has evidently been 

a factor in their formation, and similar occurrences in the helium-bearing areas would not 

be surprising. It is not necessary to· assume 

that these deposits are concentrated in a small 

area; it would., be. more reasonable, in View .of 

the extent of the helium-bearing area in Kansas 

to suppose that the uranium minerals are 

widely diss.eminated through the rocks, and are 

perhaps only 50 or 100 times as abundant as in 

the normal or average rock of the earth's crust. 

On the other hand, it might be supposed that 

the igneous rocks which doubtless underlie the 

Kansas area at a depth of less than 2 miles contain deposjts of. 'pitchblende, and that the helium liberated by these deposits has risen and 

mingled with the hydrocarbon gas formed in the 

sediments above. The presence of the buried 

granite ridge in the western part of the Kansas 

area might be regarded as supporting .this view, 

for uranium minerals are more abundant in 

granite than in other igneous rocks. However, 

in addition to the fact that this granite lies not 

within but chiefly to the northwest of .the helium-rich area, the practical absence .of helium 

in all the de!3per gases suggests that it originated 

not far beneath. the base of. the Kansas City 

group, the lowest horizon at which· it is found 

in notable quantity. The fact that the helium 

occurs through a stratigraphic range of about 

2,000 feet above this horizon might be taken to 

indicate that the active deposits are also scattered through this zone, or it might simply be 

supposed that the helium originated 'in the 

Kansas City gro~p and has in part risen to 

upper beds. 

In the Ohio area the helium is found at two 

widely separated horizons, the Berea and the 

Clinton sand, and the helium content. of the 

gases below the Clinton sand is not known; 

hence in this district there is no evidence against 

the assumption that the helium has risen from 
64 HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 

considerable depths. At Petrolia the helium is produce gas very rich .in helium, and there are 

lmown only at one horizon in the upper Penn- no data as to the character of the gradient in 

sylvanian, and the deeper gases have not been the rich helium fields themselves, but an untested, though gases from middle and lower usually high gradient even. in the vicinity of 

Pennsylvanian strata in the Ranger district, those fields is of interest. 

100 miles to the south, are poor in helium. · There are two other points which are more 

From a geologist's point of view, therefore, difficult to explain on this theory, or indeed on 

it would appear: most reasonable to assume in any other-the concentration of the helium at 

the Kansas area an extensive disseminated or shallow depths, at least in the Kansas area, and 

·very iean deposit of uranium .or thorium ore in the general association of the heliun1 with nithe middle Pennsylvanian strata; at Petrolia trogen. The most reasonable explanation for 

a somewhat richer deposit at the same or a the concentration of the helium near the surslightly higher horizon; and in Ohio a deposit fac_e in the Kansas area would be, according to 

in the _Silurian to supply the Clinton sand, and this theory, the fact that the radioactive de:.. 

perhaps· another in the Devonian or Mississip- posits also happen to lie near the surface. The 

pian to supply the Berea. only other explanation would appear to be that 

· These hypothetical deposits ~ould then ex- the helium, being very light, migrates upward 

plain the occurrence of helium in certain fields through the rocks rather faster than the other 

and its absence in others, and also the fact that, gases. · If so, it follows that the helium is conin the Kansas area at least, the helium is con- stantly escaping from the shallow gas saJ:.!ds 

fined to a certain group of formations and is into the atmosphere, for if it is free to migrate 

absent in the gases both above and below that through the denser rocks below it must cergroup. tainly be capable of passing through the more 

There are ce:r:tain other fragn1ents of indirect pervious surface rocks. This explanation is 

evidence which offer some support to the gen.- not very satisfactory, for if helium· has been 

eral theory that helium is derived from the constantly escaping a far greater volume than 

radio-elements. Because of the time element that still remaining in the sands must have 

involved, the theory helps to explain the ab- been dissipated. Moreover, in the Ohio area 

sence of helium in practically all the younger there is no such concentration of helium near 

(Cretaceous and Tertiary) gases tested. Fur- the surface, for the Clinton gas at a depth of 

thermore, the natural gas of Petrolia and Can- about 2,300 feet carries as much helium as the 

ada and the oil from many other localities are Berea gas at about 500 feet. 

radioactive, apparen~ly owing to. the great The association of heliun1 with nitrogen is 

solubility of radium and thorium emanation in difficult to account for. It has been suggested 

petroleum. (See p. 58.) This suggests that· by Lind that the nitrogenous compounds prespetroleum may have soJ?le effect in concentrat- ent in organic shales may be destroyed by 

ing the emanations by selective absorption, radioactivity and that the nitrogen so liberated 

thus causing helium to be liberated in the oil would mingle with the helium generated in the 

itself.· Except for Ramsay's statement that same process. It is known, however, that 

helium is insoluble in benzene there are no data water is decomposed by radioactivity, with the 

as to the solubility of helium in oil; but it is liberation of hydrogen, yet no hydrogen occurs 

probable that helium is at least only slightly in the helium-bearing gases, and if the radiosoluble and that it would therefore be expelled activity is not sufficient to decompose water 

from the oil and would mingle with the hydro- in perceptible amounts, it is difficult to undercarbon gases almost as fast as _it was formed~ stand why the nitrogen compounds should be 

A third bit of evidence which may possibly bear so extensively broken up. . Similarly, helium 

on the subject is Van Orstrand's discovery 35 occurs in mineral-spring gases, which are 11-su- · 

that the geothermal gradients in the Newkirk ally rich in nitrogen but in which no hydrogen 

field, in northern Oklahoma, and in the Ranger is reported, so that little weight can be attach~d 

district, _in. Texas, are very high, as would be to this suggestion until definite evidence of the 

expected if extensive deposits of the radio- -effects of radioact'ivity on ·nitrogenous comelements were present. These districts do not pounds can be adduced. Another fact that 

a5Van orstrand, c. E., personal communication. militates. agai11st the vie-\v ~hat .the nitrogen in 
.. 

THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF HELIUM IN .NATURAL GAS. 65 

the gas is of organic origin is that ICansas and 

Ohio oils contain very s1nall proportions of the 

nitrogen gases. California oil, on the other 

hand, is unusually rich in nitrogen, yet the 

Coli:for.nia gas contains little nitrogen and no 

heliun1. (Seepp.37, 96.) fiowever, the gas given 

off by uraniu1n and thorium minerals is usually 

rich in nitrogen, which thus seems to have some 

general though unexplained relation with the 

raclio-eletnen ts. · 

In order to raise the foregoing speculations 

to the rank of a definite hypothesis certain 

forn1s of evidence must be collected. Among 

the pertinent questions to be answered are the 

following: , 

1. Do the helium-bearing gas sands or the 

rocks adjoining them contain notable quantities of the radio-elements~ 

2. Is the geothermal gradient abnormally 

high in the heliun1 areas, thus affording indirect 

evidence of the presence of radioactive deposits~ 

3. Are the oil-field waters or the waters of 

mineral springs in the helium areas strongly 

radionctive, and do they carry helium~ 

4. Is the petrolemn radioactive, and if so is 

this due simply to dissolved emanations or does 

the ash of the petroleum cari·y uranium or 

thorimn ~ _ 

5. Is there any relation between the radioactivity of the gas and its helium content~ 

6. Does radioactivity rapidly destroy the 

nitrogenous compounds in oil shale, liberating free nitrogen~· 

7. Al·e the pores of the rocks beneath the 

helium-bearing gas sands largely filled with 

helium~ 

8. Is helium soluble in crude petroleum 

and is it more soluble in some varieties than 

in others~ 

D.ERIVATION FROM FAINTLY RADIOACTIVE ELEMENTS. 

Discovery of the fact that potassium and 

rubidium are faintly radioactive has led 

several observers to suggest that other elements 

inay also emit radiations. Potassium and 

rubidium themselves apparently emit only 

beta rays and therefore do not generate helium, 

but ther~ is a possibility that other elements 

may emit alpha radiations of low 'velocity.· 

As described on page 14, the radioactivity of a 

substance is ordinarily measured through its 

property of ionizing gases, this property being 

due in part to the very high speed at which 

'the active particles are expelled. Rutherford 

·states that if alpha particles (helium atoms) 

were expelled at a velocity of about half that 

at which they are given· off by uranium they 

would not cause ionization and hence would 

not be detected by the ordinary methods of 

·examination. In other words, there is a 

possibility that certain common rock-forming 

elements may emit alpha radiations at low 

velocity and may therefore generate helium: 

In this connection it will be recalled that 

Strutt interpreted the occurre'nce of large 

volumes of helium in some potash minernls " 

as evidence that potassium generates helium, 

though the fact that no alpha rays from 

potassium have ever been detected casts doubt 

on tlus vim_v. ·Similarly the anomalous volumes 

of helium found 1n beryls were formerly thought 

to indicate that the element glucinum is radioactive, but tius idea was disproved by Piutti, 

who found no helium in six specimens of 

phenacite, which is richer in glucinum than 

bery 1 itself. 

Recently the hypothesis that helium in 

natural gas may result from the disintegration 

of elements not known to· be radioactive has 

been suggested by R. B. Moore, ~ who is familiar 

with the conditions under which the heliuin 

occurs and whose .extensive. work in the field 

of radioactivity deserves special consideration. 

There is, of course, no direct evidence for this 

suggestion, but Dr: Moore proposes to investi:.. 

gate the matter experimentally, andhis results 

will be awaited with interest. If .it can be 

shown that common. rock-forming elements 

generate helium, it would .probably be. easy to 

explain the source of the helium in natural gas,· 

though it may be pointed out that the reverse 

difficulty might then arise-the problem of 

explaining the absence of helium in other areas. 

Our knowledge of radioactivity is still 

fragmentary, and it will not be surprismg if 

future discoveries ·compel us to modify our 

present ideas cons~derably. Clarke 37 suggested many years ago that the chemical 

elements have been developed by a process of 

evolution from simpler forms of matter, .and 

the more recent discovery of changes in the 

opposite direction, such as the disintegration 

of uranium into simpler bodies, offers consideraa Personal communication. 

87 Clarke; F. W., Evolution and tho spectroscope: Pop. Sci. Monthly,· 

January, 1873. 
66 HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 

.able support to this view. Dr. Moore, in dis-' 

cussing with the writer his theory that other 

elements inay prove to be radioactive, sums 

up his attitude in the words "I can not help 

thinking th~t something is going on that 

science lmows nothing of at the present time, 

and that the presence of helium [in natural gas] 

can not be accounted for by anything that 

comes within the scope of our present lmowledge." The possibility that other elements 

also disintegrate can not. be ignored, though 

the helium in natural gas should not be ascribed 

; to such action unless positive evidence can be 

adduced or unless all other hypotheses are 

proved inadequate. 

PRIMORDIAL HELIUM. 

In contrast with the views· of those who 

ascribe all helium to radioactive processes is 

the theory developed by Becker, Clarke, and 

others that some and perhaps much of the 

helium in the globe is primordial and has ~ad 

no connection with radioactivity. It is, of 

course, difficult to adduce positive or direct 

evidence in favor of such a theory, and it 

therefore rests on certain broad deductions, 

chief among which are the following: 

1. The prominence of helium and the apparent absence -of uranium and thorium in 

celestial .bodies indicate that helium can and 

does occur in the universe apart from the 

radio-elements, which may therefore be regarded as _combinations of helium and some 

other element, app~ently lead .. · 

2. The disintegration of uranium and thorium is attended by the emission of an enormous 

quantity of heat; hence their formation must 

be accompanied by the absorption of heat and 

could take place only under conditions of great 

temperature and pressure. Conditions favorable to their formation doubtless existed in the 

earlier stages of the cooling earth and may 

exist in the_interior of the earth to-day. 

3. If uranium and thorium are to be regarded 

simply as combinations of helium and lead, 

there is no reason to suppose that all the helium 

in the earth entered into this combination, for 

it is· clear that all the lead did not. 

These conclusions, though not susceptible of 

actual proof, are none the less forceful and 

deserving of consideration. The concept of 

primordial helium removes the quantitativ(:1 

difficulties which confront all hypotheses ()f 

derivation from the radio-elem:ents. The existence of helium in mineral-spring and mine 

gases in volumes far larger than can be explained 

by the radioactivity of these gases indicates that 

there are large accumulations of helium underground, and these accumulations can be explained at least as well by the primordial theory 

as by any theory of radioactive origin. The · 

same is true of the helium in volcanic gases. On 

the other hand, the helium in most minerals is 

obviously derived from the rad~o-elements, and 

most minerals evidently contain a large proportion of all the helium that has been generated 

within them; hence it may be argued that the 

great bulk of all helium produced by radioactivity is confined in the rocks close to the point 

of its origin and that it can not have entered 

into the. great accumulations which find their 

escape in various natural gases. This is, in 

fact, the view held by Strutt and many others 

who, though apparently ascribing all helium 

to-radioactivity, ignore the evidence of natural 

gases and ·contend that helium for the most 

part remains in the mineral grains in which it is 

formed. 

An_other difficulty confronting those who 

oppose the concept of primordial helium is that 

of explaining the great volume of helium in the 

atmosphere. C. E. Van Orstrand has calculatedfrom the figures given by Jeans (p. 52) the 

total volume of helium in the atmosphere and 

finds it to be 58 X 1012 cubic meters. As 

shown on page 60, the total volume of helium 

generated annually in the earth by the disintegration of the radio-elements is probably 

somewhere between 8 million and 30 million 

cubic meters. At the maximum rate all the 

helium in the atmosphere would therefore be 

formed in 2 million years; the minimum rate 

would-require 7! million years. It-is generally 

admitted, however, that only a small proportion of the helium generated can have migrated 

through th~ rocks and escaped into the atmosphere, for very large volumes are lmown to be_ 

entangled in the rocks and to be trapped in 

accumulations of various natural gases. Even 

assuming that helium is produced at the rate 

of 30 million cubic meters a year, therefore, it 

~eems probable that a longer time would be 

required for the accumulation and escape of all 

the helium in the atmosphere than most 

geologists are willing to allow for the age of the 

earth. · 

•• 

. ' 
•• 

THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF HELIUM IN NATURAL GAS. 67. 

Broadly considered, the theory of pri- should therefore be found accompanying the 

mordial helium thus has many advantages, truly inert gases, helium, argon, krypton, etc. 

thoubO'h its detailed application to the helium Argon and neon in very small prop?rtions h~ve 

in natural gas is more diffic ul t. · I ~ or d er t o been detected in some of the hehum~bearmg 

explain the occurrence of helium in . some gases of Kansas, but unfortun~tely n_o quantilocalities and not in others, it is necessary to tative determinations have been pubhshed and 

postulate special structural conditi?ns · o f so~e definite evidence on thil3 point must await furkind which would permit the h.ehum to nse ther work. 

from below. The only known unusu~ struc- ATMOSPHERIC .HELIUM. 

tural feature in any of the helium areas is the Th~ great supply of helium in the atmosburied granite ridge in the Mid-Continent region phere and the common occurrence of helium-

(see pp. 22, 35), but the fact that. the de_ep ga~es rich gases in shallow strata naturally. suggest 

nearest the granite are poor In hehum In- that the helium in natural gas may be of 

dicates that little significance can be attached atmospheric origin. Owing. to the lack. of 

to this feature. All the other helium-bearing evidence· this view can .at present be regarded 

gas fields, except the Havre fiel~, are located only as conjectural. Two possibilities present 

in regions of gentle structure whiCh are remote themselves:__that the- helium, nitrogen, argon, 

from igneous activity; and on the other hand -etc., represent the inactive residue of air that 

several fields examined which are close to has been entrapped in the sediments; or that 

areas of structural disturbance and igneous these gases have been absorbed by the decayi~g 

. action produce gas that is practically free organic matter from which the petroleum _1s 

from helium. (Seep. 35.) Furthermore, the derived and have been later concentrated 1n 

stratiO'raphic distribution of the helium- some manner. 

including its absence not only in the Permian When sediments are laid down offshore a 

and Mississippian gas of the Mid-Continent certain amount of air is probably trapped in 

area but also in practically all Cretace~us and the interstices; and if these sediments should 

'rertiary gasel'l-is ve~y difficult to explain. be raised above sea level during a period of 

On the other hand, the primordial theory is aridity, when the ground-water level is low, and 

not· incompatible with the common occurrence then resubmerged and covered by further deof helirun near the surface and with its usual posits, a large quantity of air might be perm~­

association with nitrogen. As already noted, nently trapped.as The oxygen and carbon eliif the concentration of helium near the surface oxide in this air would be chemically fixed as 

is ascribed to its tendency to migrate upward oxide and carbonate, and some of the nitrogen 

it must be admitted that the helium is con- might also enter into combination, leaving a 

stantly . escaping from the shallowest san~s residue of nitrogen, helium, argon, etc. This 

into the atmosphere; and according to th1s theory has the following definite objections: 

view the v9lumes of helium involved are so ( 1) The formation of nitrogenous compounds 

large that they can be explained o~y by the·. under ordinary. temperature and pressure seems 

primordial theory or some other whiCh postu- improbable. (2) Air contains about 2,300 

l~tes an almost illimitable supp~y. . ; times as much argon as heli~, and although 

The association of helium With mtrogen In argon is strictly an inert gas, differing from 

natural gas, in mineral-spring gases, and in the helium chiefly in its greater solubility in water, 

gases given off by rocks _woul~ also be reason- the natural gases of Kansas apparently cont~in 

able according to the prrmord1al theory, espe- far less argon than helium. .(3) The Pernnan 

cially as it is very difficult to see how the sediments of Kansas and Oklahoma are supnitrogen in natural gas can have been deriv~d posed to be in part continental deposits laid 

from the petroleum or from other orgamc down under arid conditions which were presources. Some observers hav~ conclu~ed th~t sumably very favorable to the entrapping ?f 

the common occurrence of mtrogen ~~ deep air, yet the Permian gases are very poor 1n 

eru·th gases is due to the decompositiOn of helium. 

nitrides in the earth's interior; others, like ------------------- . · · t ss This theory has been developed and discussed by Frank Reeves Moureu, adopt an opposite VIew, pOinting ou (The absence of water in certain sandstones of the Appalachian oil 

that nitrogen is a chemically inactive gas and fields: Econ. Geology, vol.12, p. 354, 1917). 
68 HELIUM-BEARING NATUR~ GAS. · 

The organic matter from which petroleum is· 

derived ·may under some conditions be exposed 

to the air before its burial in the sediments. 39 

Certain of the fatty compounds that are formed 

and destroyed during the decay of organic 

matter and its conversion into· oil 40 may have 

the power of absorbing helium with proportionately smaller quantities of nitrogen and th~ 

rare gases. After the burial of the organic 

debris, its conversion into petroleum and the 

destruction of the active compo.unds would 

permit the helium to escape. This theory is of 

course founded solely on conjecture, but it 

might be tested without great difficulty by experimental work on the absorption of helium 

by various fatty and other organic compounds. 

CONCLUSIONS. 

Of the theories discussed in the foregoing 

paragraphs the following seem the most plausible and are supported by the greatest number 

of data. ( 1) That the helium is derived from 

deposits of uranium or thorium, probably dissemi.nated through the strata not far beneath 

the horizons at which the helium-bearing gas 

occurs. (2) That the helium is primordial and 

is derived from deep-seated sources. The 

theory that ~scribes the helium to elements not 

yet known to be radioactive and the theories 

that regard it as atmospheric helium are not 

yet supported by any definite evidence, though 

the former especially should be borne in mind 

as a distinct possibility. 

In favor of the theory of derivation from deposits of uranium and thorium the foUowing 

main points may be cited. ( 1) The existence 

'of such deposits is not unreasonable from a 

geologist's point of view. (2) If it is admitted 

that considerable helium can escape from the 

mineral in which it forms and migrate upward, 

the size of the assumed deposits would not be 

incredible. ( 3) Such deposits would account 

for the areal and also the stratigraphic distribution of the helium, including its absence in 

younger (Cretaceous and Tertiary) gases. ( 4) 

Radium and thorium emanations are highly 

soluble in petroleum, which may therefore 

tend to concentrate these elements and their 

descendants. In opposition to the theory it 

may be argued ( 1) that there is no evidence, 

a9 This view has been developed by Murray Stuart (The sedimentary 

deposition of oil: India Geol. Survey Rec., vol. 40, pt. 4, pp. 32Q-333, 

1910). 

•o Engler, C., Beitrii.ge zur Chemie und Physik der ErdOlbildung: 

Petroleum Zeitschr., vol. 2, pp. 85Q-853, 1907. · 

direct· or indirect, for assuming the existence of 

radioactive deposits other than the presence 

of the helium itself, and (2) that there is some 

doubt as to the extent to which helium escapes 

from the minerals in which it is formed, and if 

only a small proportion escapes incredibly 

large deposits of the radio-elements must be 

postulated. 

In favor of the theory of primordial hel~um, 

( 1) there is an excellent evidence that helium 

exists in the universe apart from the radioelements, and it is therefore ve~:Y probable that 

some of the helium in the earth has never been 

associated with them; (2) the concept of primordial helium. removes all the quantitative 

difficulties which confront other theories. The 

·chief argument against this theory is that it 

does not explain the areal or the stratigraphic 

distribution of the helium-bearing gas. 

In many respects the first theory appears 

preferable to the writer, the chief objection 

being that its major premise-the existence of 

radioactive deposits-is pure assumption. If 

direct or indirect evidence of the existence of· 

such deposits could be gathered· this theory 

would be the logical one to accept. If, however, no evidence of deposits large· enough to 

produce the results observed can be obtained 

and if the other hypotheses suggested also fail 

through lack of evidence, the .theory of primm·-

dial helium is arrived at by a process of elimination. 

CHIEF SOURCES OF HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL 

GAS. 

GENERAL OCCURRENCE. 

In the course of the present investigation 

practically all commercial supplies of natural 

gas in the western part of the Mid-Continent 

oil and gas region were sampled and tested for 

helium. Little attention was paid to the gas 

produced in the e~stern part of the region, for, 

as shown by numerous con1plete analyses, the 

gas of that locality is low in nitrogen and therefore presumably too poor in helium to be of 

commercial value. All supplies of gas large 

enough to be of economic value in southern 

Oklahoma and in Texas, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Montana, Washington, and California 

were also investigated, and a few samples 

were collected in Louisiana and other States. 

Except in the Vinton County field, Ohio, 

practically no work· was done in the great 

•• 
CHIEF SOURCES 01!"' HELIU:M-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 

Appalachian and northern interior oil and gas 

regions, which contribute about 70 per cent 

of all the gas produced.annually in the United 

States. This neglect was due partly to lack of 

time and partly to the fact that the many 

analyses of gas from those regions that have 

been made and published during the last 50 

years show uniformly low nitrogm~ conte~t 

and therefore indicate that the gas 1s poor .In 

heliun1. · It is believed that if .gas of low heating value-that is, rich in nitrogen and heliumwere being produced in any of the eastern 

fields the fact would be known or would have 

been discovered incidentally during th~ investigation. The prospects of discovering ·furth~r 

supplies of gn.s sin1ilar to that produced 1n 

Vinton County are -therefore believed to be 

slight, though it must be recognized that this 

conclusion is based on inference rather than 

on detailed observn.tion. 

In the course of the investigation about 325 

san1ples of gas, 1nost of them collected_ by. 

n1mnbm·s of the Geological Survey, · were 

tested for heliun1. · The results of the tests 

and all particulars regarding the s.ource of the 

samples and the supply of the gas available are 

presented in tabular form on pages 96-109. 

The tests 1nade by Cady and McFarland in 1906 

have also been included in the tn.bles, which 

thus present a concise summary of our present 

knowledge regarding the distribution, occurrence, and a-vailable supply of helium-bearing 

natural gas in the United States. · 

The location of the fields from which the 

san1ples were taken is shown on Plates I and III 

and figure 5 (p. 29), and the general geology 

of the heliun1-bearing districts has been discussed. In the following pages brief descriptions of the more i1nportant helium-bearing gas 

fields will be given, with special reference to 

the location and economic relations of the 

fields, the volume of gas available, and the 

probable duration of the supply. No attempt 

will be 1nade, however, to describe all the 

fields frmn which samples were collected, or 

eve.n to give complete geologic descriptions of 

the fields which are at present the chief poten-

. tin1 sources of supply. The statements as to 

developtnents of course refer to the time at 

which this pi1per is written. 

MID-CONT.INE~T REGION. 

ELMDALE FIELD. 

The Elmdale gas field is· in Chase County, 

Kans., about 5 miles "\vest of Cottonwood Falls. 

The field as at present developed lies mostly 

south and east of El.pldale, or .in the sout~east 

corner of T. 19 S., R. 7 E., but there are also 

three isolated groups of successful wells· some 

miles north and northeast of the field. AJ..: 

though the surface rocks .in. this general district .are normally of Permian ~ge, a large and 

prominent anticline or dome has brought· the 

upper Pennsylvanian strata to the surface in 

the vicinity of Elmdale .. · The anticline, which 

represents a structural elevation of about 200 

feet, has a north-south diameter of about 12 

miles and an east-west diameter of about 9 

miles; its center is in the valley of Cottonwood 

River, about 3 miles southwest of Elmdale. 

Despite the size and altitude of this fold it has 

not been productive o{ oil, a~d two d~~p wells · 

near Elmdale encountered granite at a depth 

of about 1,900 feet. 

Several dozen gas wells have been drilled on 

or close to tP,e anticline. Gas is found at three 

horizons, in beds known as the 150-foot sand, 

the 350-foot sand, and the 580-foot sand. 

Wells have been drilled to the 150-foot sand 

at a number of farmhouses, where the gas is 

used directly for domestic purposes. The initial pressure is said to be about 17 pounds to 

the square inch and the flows small, but the 

wells are long-lived. The 350-foot and 580-

foot sands have been developed on a commercial scale by the local gas company, which 

supplies about 300,000 cubic feet: a day to Cottonwood Falls, Stro.ng City, and neighboring 

towns. The flow of the wells is comparatively 

small, and the "settled" pressure is only 20 to 

30 pounds. The sands appear to be productive ·nearly everywhere throughout a large 

area, however, and it is claimed by local engineers that it would be possible to develop a 

production of 8 to 10 million cubic fe.et ·a day, 

provided all three sands ·were tapped. 

Samples of gas collected from the 350-foot 

and 580-foot sands showed, respectively, 0.35 

and 0.50 per cent of helium, and a sample collected by Cady and McFarland from the 150- · 

foot sand in 1906 showed 0.56 per cent. The 
70 HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 

analyses thus indicate that the gas is not especially rich in helium, despite its shallow depth 

and the location of the· field in the same general 

belt as the helium-rich Augusta and Eldorado 

fields, to the south. 

R 4 E 

4 3 

9. 10 II 

16 15 14 '13 

21 22 23 24 

28 27 26 

33 34 

4 

21 22' 23 

28 27 26 

33 34 35 36 

ELDORADO FIELD. 

LOCATION. 

The Eldorado field, which is in the central 

part of Butler County, Kans., is one of the 

most productive oil fields in the Mid-Continent 

R.s··E. 

s. 

23 

26 

34 35 

C=~ ~==E:~o========~1========~ZC========53 Miles 

FIGURE 8.-Sketch map of Eldorado field, Kans., showing gas wells, location of samples, and helium content of gas. 

•• 
• 

CHIEF SOURCES OF HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 71 

region and is at present one of. the chief potential sources of· helium-bearing natural gas. 

The field lies chiefly in T. 25 S., R. 5 E., but extends some distance into T. 26 S., R. 5 E., and 

T. 24 S., R. 4 E. (See fig. 8.) The town of 

Eldorado, ·on the eastern edge of the field, is 

at the junction of the Missowi Pacific and 

Atchison,· Topeka & Santa Fe railroads. The 

town has a population of about 15,000 and the 

neru·est city, Wichita, about 30 ·mile~ to the 

west, has a population of about 60',000 and is an 

important railroad center.· · · 

GEOLOGIC OUTLINE. 

The productive sands in the Eldorado field 

ru.·e of· Pennsylvanian and Mississippian age, 

the highest occurring near the top of the Pennsylvanian and the lowest in Mississippian and 

probably in places in older rocks. The highest 

producing sand is encountered at a depth of 650 

feet and according to Fath 41 occurs iri the 

lower pru.·t of the Wabaunsee group. It is productive only in the northeastern part of the 

field, wher~ it yields considerable oil but practically no gas. The field's output of gas is 

obtained from the next lower productive sands, 

which ·occur at average depths of 900, 1·,200, 

a:rid 1,475 feet. The sands at 900 and 1,200 

feet are fairly persistent throughout the producing area, but they are zones or groups of 

sands which individually are lenticular and 

discontinuous. These zones, which yield the 

great bulk of all the gas produced in· the :field, 

occur in the Shawnee, Douglas, and Lansing 

groups. The main oil zone is encountered ·at 

an average depth of 2,500 feet and occurs in 

Mississippian rocks corresponding to the Boone 

lin1estone. In places it probably extends 

downward into older rocks. This. zone yields 

the bulk of the oil produced in the field,. and a 

great many oil wells have therefore penetrated 

the overlying gas sands. · In mos.t of these 

wells the gas has been mudded off, but the gas 

pressure in ·a sand penetrated by so many 

wells is naturally. affect.ed, despite precautionary measures. 

The Eldorado field lies on a prominent anticline, on which there ru·e many irregular cross 

folds and minor wrinkles. According to Fath, 

the distribution of ~ot;h oil and· gas is closely 

related to the structure; the gas sands are pro41 Fnth, A. E., report on tho Eldorado oil. nnd gos field, Kru1s. (in 

propamtlon). 

ductive only in the highest parts of the fold, 

and the oil sands are productive over a much 

larger area which extends from the crest of the 

fold well down its flanks. (See fig. 8.) Owing 

to the lenticular character of the sands and to 

the variation in their porosity, howeve:r;, neighboring gas wells may have very different capacities. · 

QUALITY OF THE GAS. 

As shown by the tests of 33 samples (see 

p. 98), the ·gas of the Eldorado field ranges in 

helium content from 0.48 to 1. 70 per cent. 

Only two samples, however, show less than 0.71 

per cent, and the average of all the samples is 

1.12 per cent. Nineteen samples of gas from the 

900-foot zone show an average helium content 

of 1.20 per cent, and 13 samples from the 1,200-

foot zone an average of 1.01 per cent. 

The Eldorado g~ varies considerably in 

composition, and there appear to be no marked 

and constant .differences between the gases -

from different sands. The general quality of 

the gas is shown by the following representati_ve. a1_1alyses: 

Analyses of gas of Eldorado field, Kans. 

900-foot 1,200-foot 1,400-foot zone. zone. zone. 

Carbon dioXide (C02) ••••••• 0. 56 o. 10 0. 12 

Oxygen ( 0 2 ) ••••• - • - - - • - - • ·. 00 .14 . 10 

Methane (CH4) •••••• --- .. 54. 58 62. 68 31.36 

Ethane (C2H6) ...... - .... • 3. 33 11. 82 12. 78 

Residue (N2, etc.) ......... 41.53 25. 26 55. 64 

100.00 100. 00 100.00 

Heating value (British 

thermal units) ........... 584 811 524 

VOLUME AND DURATION OF THE GAS SUPPLY. 

Although the Eldorado field is still comparatively young, having beeri opened late in 1915, 

~ts gas resources have been he.avily drawn upon 

in the last four years and are now probably 

about two-thirds exhausted. The maximum 

daily pr.oduction of about 20 million cubic feet 

was reached at the end of 1916, when the combined open flow of all tlie wells was about 60 

million cubic feet. In May, 1918, the daily 

production was about 10 million and the total 

open flow about 25 million. cubic feet. The 

entire productio~ of the field is used for drilling 

·and pumping the oil wells, but it constitutes 

only ·about two-thirds of the volume required 

for this purpose. 
72 HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 

- The first wells in the field had an average 

rock pressure of 465 pounds to the square inch 

but in :May, 1918, the average pressure of all 

the wells in the field had fallen to 140 pounds. 

This rapid decline in pressure, which is shown 

graphic~lly in figure 9, is due chiefly to the 

fact that the wells have been allowed to produce from 30 to 50 per cent of their open flow, 

though a contributing factor has doubtless 

been the unavoidable waste of gas caused by 

the fact that the g~s sands have been punctured by so many wells drilled for oil. 1 t will 

be noted, however, that the greater part of 

the decline in pressure took place in i 916, the 

period dw·ing which most of the gas wells were 

drilled and when also the daily production was 

450 

::i :r:400 :JU 

(/)Z 

~~350 o::O:: 

a..:t: 

(/)6300 

011) 

Za:: 

6~250 a. 

200 

1916 1917 

\\ \\ \ 

\~ v'\ 

\ \ 

\ 

\:, 

~', 

production, provided the wellE; are not made to 

yield too heavily. If the daily production of the 

field had been reduced to 4 million cubic feet 

in the middle of 1918, this production could 

probably have been maintained for at least 

three years. On the assumption that the average helium content of the gas is 1.12 per cent, 

this would represent a daily production of 44,800 

. cubic feet of helium. 

It will be noted that the curve in figure 9 

shows a slight upward trend in the first part of 

1918. This is due to the bringing in of several 

large gas wells on a small dome then recently 

discovered at the north end of the field. Although the gas-bearing territory in the main 

field has now been practically all drilled, there 

. 1918 1919 1920 

ISO .. '\.__ ........... ~ 

·~ 1L 100 --- 0 

~~ IIl...J 50 ~w 

Total number of ..--. wei I~ 

-.... ______ -----r---

~ ~ 

I I I 

:::>~ 

:z 0 

FIGURE 9.-Curve showing decline of average rock pressure of a typical group of wells in the Eldorado field, Kans. 

largest. From the middle of 1917 to the middle of 1918, when the drilling became less active 

and the daily production was reduced to 10 or 

12 million cubic feet, the decline in pressure 

became very·moderate. · 

is a possibility that other small additional supplies will be discovered, and that the life of the 

field will be correspondingly increased. 

AUGUSTA FIELD. 

LOCATION. 

As the rock pressure declines the open fiow 

and therefore also the production diminishes; The Augusta field is in the southwestern part 

but as the production decreases the decline in of Butler County, Kans., its north end being 

pressure becomes less rapid. In the later only about 5 miles south of the southern limit 

stages of the life of a field the curve of pressure of the Eldorado field. Tlie .Augusta field lies 

decline therefore becomes flatter, and a small chiefly in Tps. 27 and 28 S., R. 4 E. The town 

production may be maintained for a compar- of Augusta, which has a population of about 

atively long period. It is evident froni figur~ 1,500, is in the east-central part of the field. 

9 that the Eldorado field has entered this stage It is situated on the St. Louis-San Francisco 

and that dl!ring the next two or three year.s the and Atchi~on, Topeka & Santa Fe railroads. 

field may be relied on to furnish a moderate i (See fig. 10.) ,, 

• 
• 

• 

CHIEF SOURCES OF HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 73. 

R.4 E. 

EXPLANATION 

14 DJ 

The general geology 

of the Augusta field is 

similar to that at Eldorado, and the producing 

zones are roughly equivalent to those already 

described for that :field. 

The 650-:foot zone, however, which yields only 

oil in the Eldorado field, 

carries at Augusta a 

' 'wind gas '' very rich 

inhe.liun1. 'I'he1naingas 

sands forrn a zone rangn1g in depth between 

1,400 and 1,600 feet. 

Individual sands can 

not be traced for great 

distances, and the gas 

seems to occur irregularly through this zone, 

rather than at several 

distinct horizons, as at 

Eldorado·. The principal oil sands lie at 

depths of about 2,000 

vi ~Faromnate hotmda1y 

~ t----1-~---+-"-~-:7--tlt'------l,.-------,....~---l o area ofshaliow§ru! 

to 2,400 feet. 

The Augusta field is 

on a large anticlinalfold 

which represents a 

southwestern continua- vi 

~ Gas well 

Percentage ~ ofhelium 

m.gaa 

tion of the Eldorado an- ~ l--+-4--.~--l-<71.tf71---.t....+-+-----+-=~--t----+ 

ticline. The Augusta 

fold,. like that at Eldorado, is hTegular, and it 

consists of at least two 

:fai:dydistinctanticlines. 

The larger one, which is 

known as the 1nain Augusta anticline, lies , 

chiefly in 1"'. 288., R. 4E. 

It yields a large proportion of the oil produced 

23 

Z6 

Scale i=::3~:=3:::::E==ioi:::·====:i=:===s=:=====x:32 Miles 

FIGURE 10.-Sketch map of Augusta field, Kans., showing gas wells, location of samples, helium content of gas, and areas in which the shallow gas rich in helium occurs. 

in this field und at present practically all the gas. 

The smnJler fold, which is known as the North 

Augusta anticline, is in the central part ofT. 27 

S., R. 4 E., and is separated from the main 

anticline by a structurally low and barren area. 

QUAJ,I'l'Y 01!' 'l'HE GAS. 

Twenty-six samples of Augusta gas have be€m 

tested for helhun, with the results shown on 

page 98. '"l''wo samples of gas from the shallow zone ( 450 to 650 feet) contained 1. 94 and 

2.13 per cent of helium. Two samples of the 

gas occurring at depths of 1,200 to 1,400 feet on 

the NorthAugusta anticline, in T. 27 S., R. 4 E., 

showed 1.03 and 1.14 per cent of helium. The 

remaining samples represent the gas that occurs at depths of 1,200 to 1,500 feet on the main 

anticline and now constitutes the great bulk of 

the output. This gas ranges in helium content 

between 0.16 and 0.65 per cent, though only 
74 HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 

· three samples showed less· than 0.38 per cent, 

and the average of· the 22 samples is 0.43 per 

cent. 

There are therefore in the Augusta field three 

distinct types of gas containing 2.04, 1.09, and 

0.43 per cent of helium. The richest and the 

poorest of these gases occur at different depths 

on the main anticline, .which comprises the central and southern parts of the field. The intermediate gas occurs at about the same depth and 

horizon as the poorest gas but on the North 

Augusta anticline. It is interesting to note 

that the gas produced on this anticline thu~ 

differs greatly in helium content from that produced in the main field and resembles the Eldorado gas; and it is said, furthermore, that the 

North Augusta oil resembles the Eldorado oil 

in gravity and composition more· closely than 

the oil of the main Augusta field. · 

The shallow gas carrying about 2 per cent of 

helium is very high in. nitrogen, as shown by 

analysis 17, page 39. The gas produced in the 

North Augusta field is on the average only 

slightly higher in nitrogen than that of the main 

field, though containing about twice as much 

helium. This is shown by the following 

analyses, kindly furnished by Prof. H. C. Allen: 

Analyses of gas from the Augusta and North Augusta fields, 

Kans.· 

Augusta. North Augusta. 

Carbon dioxide (C02 ) •••• 0.21 0.32 0.00 0.07 

Oxygen (02 ) ............. .00 .12 . 31 .19 

Methane ( CH4 ) •••••••••• 76.48 63.32 50.22 63.92 

Ethane (C2H6) .......... - 12.60 13.45 21.32 5 .. 67 

Higher hydrocarbons.-... .44 .13 .00 .19 

Residue (N2 , etc.) ........ 10.26 22.63 28.15 29.96 ---------- 99.99 99.97 100.00 100.00 

Heating value (British 

thermal units) .......... 961 844 853 719 

QUANTITY OF SHALLOW GAS AVAILABLE. 

of the sand, for o·ut of about 200 deep oil and 

gas wells drilled in the shallow-gas· territory 

only about 7 5 encountered volumes of this gas 

large enough to be noted and reported by the 

drillers. The volumes reported range between 

a few thousand and 3~ million cubic feet daily, 

with an average of perhaps 400,000 cubic feet. 

The rock pressure of· this gas has never been 

gaged, though an inconclusive test made by the 

writer suggests that it is probably between 50 

and 7 5 pounds to the square inch. 

As the shallow gas_ consists so largely of 

nitrogen that it is practically incombustible, 

no attempts have been made to produce it, but 

owing to· the drilling of so many deeper wells 

through its horizon a considerable volume of 

the gas has doubtless escaped. The Empire 

Gas & Fuel Co., in a noteworthy spirit of conservation, has taken pains to mud off or seal 

this horizon in all its wells, but most of the 

~ther operating companies have taken no 

precautions to prevent the gas from escaping. 

On the other hand, the variable porosity of the 

sand itself has evidently prevented very extensive loss of the gas, for the volumes reported 

in wells drilled recently average about as large 

as those in the early wells. Owing to the 

irregular distribution of the gas, to the lack of 

information as to the rock pressure, and to the 

fact-that an indeterminate quantity has escaped 

it is impossible to estimate the ~otal volume still 

in the sands, but it is probably little more than 

half a billion cubic feet. 

QUANTITY OF DEEP GAS AVAILABLE. 

The Augusta field, which was opened late in 

1913, produced up to the middle of 1918 

between 30 and 35 billion cubic feet of gas, all 

of which was derived from the group of sands 

occurring at depths between 1,400 and 1,600 

feet. The .original rock pressure was slightly 

over 400 pounds to the square inch, but in July, 

As shown in figure 10 the shallow gas con- 1918, the average pressure was about 140 

taining about 2 per cent of helium. occurs only pounds. At that time the daily production 

in certain parts of the field, being apparently of the field was almost 7 million cubic feet, and 

confined to two areas, aggregating about 2,000 the total open flow was about 20 million cubic 

acres, on the main Augusta anticline. These feet. 

areas occupy the two highest points on the The gas resources of the North- Augusta 

anticline, and their shape and extent are de- anticline are now almost exhausted, an~ the 

termi:ried almost entirely by structural con- present output of the field is derived almost 

ditions. Within these areas, however, the wholly from the main· anticline. The field is 

distribution of the gas is irregular and is evi- _ n'ow well outlined, and there is little prospect 

dently controlled by variations in the po~osity of the discovery of new supplies, altho~gh a few 

.. 
• 

• 

CHIEF SOURCES OF HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 

additional wells can yet 

be drilled. A study of 

the curve of rock-pressure decline indicates 

that unless water troubles become too serious 

the field should be capable of producing an 

average of 3 to 4 million 

cubic feet. a day until 

some time in 1921 .. , 

The comparatively 

low helium content· of 

this deeper gas renders . (/) 

it unfavora"f?le as a ·~ 

source of helium, but if 

it were mi..~ed with the 

shallow gas in proportions of 3 to 1 the average helium content of 

the mi~ture would be 

about 0.8 per cent. 

DEXTER-OTTO DISTRICT. 

LOCA'l'ION. 

cri 

&I) 

M 

.... 

'R.6 E. R.7 E. 

/ 27 Z6 25 30 29. 28 / 27 26 Z5 

Eaton / 

31 I 34 35 36 ~ 32 3r 34 35 J6 

~I 

I 3 2 I 6 5 / 4. 3 2 I 

10 II I? 7 i 9 10 II 12 

Pre ba?f;.;;;a of the /~ 

_JY 

50- ~ !and~ Ar 

(Forde fll~ see fiju '(e12.), ~ 

15 14 13, t~ A a 17 16 15 14 13 

~ "". Dexter \"""I \ 01 '*n \ •, 22 ~ .... 19 zo 21 22 23 24 

l 

I Z7 26 ( 25 30 29 28 27 26 .zs 

- \ 

\ 34- 35 ~6 31 32: 33 34 3s ~E oos~ 

·%\ ~' 3 2 1·.;:;\ 6 5 4 3 2 I ~, . 

~ 

~ 

10 II 121 /J' <- \ 7 8 9 10 II 12 

I <11 I 

/ ~j I 

I 

I '1 15 14 I t3/ IS 17 16 IS 14 13 

-¢- /!1 ~ 0.50 

-¢- 1 ~I '1;1- 1/9 22 23 I I 24 I 

27 26 

lvfaple Cit r ~ 

~ 

34 35 

3 2 

10 II 

IS 14 

.__ ___ ----

0 

Drilling 

19 20 Zl 22 23 24 

I / Otto 

~I ~ §j 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 X tl 

1 36 31 '32 33. 34 35 36 

~ 

\ 6 5 4 ·3 2 I 

\ 

' -9-

12 I 7 8 "9 10 II 12 

~r ~~ .1-9-

/ 1.04-J;l: ~ 

~3 '1;1-0. 94 16 17 16 IS 14 13 

/ ~~~ t_ ___ 

----!.----, ___ OKLAHOMA. --- Scale 

ec::E:~:=:=i===~~~.i::::::===::E=~~.,.,;4 Miles 

• Oil well -¢- Dry hole 0.94 Percentage of heliurn in gas 

75 

The Dexter-Otto area 

comprises that part of 

eaStern Cowley County, 

Kans., shown in figure 

11. A very prominent 

anticline traverses this 

area and extends both 

north and south beyond 

the territory shown on 

the map. 1\vo deep oil 

wells, many shallow gas 

wells, arid a number of 

dry holes have been 

drilled on or near the 

a.~is of the fold. There 

are three areas in which 

gas is produced-the 

vicinity of Dexter, an 

area 2 miles north of 

Otto, and an area 5 

miles southeast of Otto. 

In all these areas the gas 

is rich in helium, carrying from 0.5 to 1.9 per 

cent, but the present 

supply is sn1all, and the 

chances of a great extension are rather slender. 

FIGURE 11.-Sketch map of Dexter-Otto area, Cowley County, Kans., showing location of wells sampled 

· and helium content of gas. 
76 HELIUM-BEARI~G. NATURAL GAS. 

OLD DEXTER FIELD. 

Gas was discovered at Dexter jn 190!:) at a 

depth uf 325 feet, and during 1906 to 19.08 22 

producing wells and 1 dry. hole·· were drilled·. 

Most of the wells were put down within the 

town limits, and the field, though very·productive, was small. The gas sand ranges between 

20 and 55 feet in thickness and is encountered 

at .de.p_ths betwee.l]. 300 _ap.~ 3_50 jeet. __ The. 

initial rock pressure was unusually high for 

this depth, being 110 pounds to the square 

inch,· and the mau-x:imum- open -flow was 10 

million cubic feet a day, though the average 

was about 3 million cubic feet. Several deep 

wells drilled for oil in this· area in the last two 

years have found some gas at the same horizon, 

one well having found, it is said, enough gas to 

bldw ·the ·water out of a 16-inch hole: At 

presen,t half a dozen of the old wells are still 

·- -R.6·E . 

pr_oducji}g a f_my thousand cubic feet a day 

(See fig. 12.) 

The Dexter gas is famous because of its peculiar composition and especially because when 

examined by Cady and McFarland in 1905 it 

was the only gas of this type known, its analysis 

having led to all the subsequent work on helium. 

Two samples tested by Cady and McFarland in 

1~95-6~ho~ve~ 1_.64 and 1.84percentofhelium; 

two others ·collected by· the writer in Au o-ust 

b ' 1918, showed 1.68 and 1.83 per cent; and one 

collected by a local operator in the spring of 

1918 showed only .0.95 per cent, but this sample 

possibly contained ·air. 

The Dexter field. is regarded as exhausted, 

and there appears to be no warrant for expecting the discovery of further large supplies. 

As the largest wells were drilled on the western 

edge of the pool, however, it is believed that 

R. 7 E. some gas at least can be .----------------,----------/~---") obtained by drilling in 

/ the central or western :< part of sec. 13. (See fig • 

. 2;-~ 12.) The small cost of 

13 

(f) 

('f)l------,..:..t;======::::.l--!--¥./.---1--

2\ ** £:§' 

EXPLANATION 

\ . . I I 

\ . Grass Valley LL. 

\ Od~0 11 _ 

\ Mon/torOi!Co:j 

\., Found 13millt~n /.'/ 

'- cv. rt. at 1010/! 

',24 f --1 

Wells in 

350-ft.sa·s sand 

~ Gas well 

-¢-

Dry ho[e 

. Wells about .. 3000 ft. deep 

0 

Drilling 

• . Oil well 

@ 

-<?-

Dry hole 

l.G8 

Well sampled · · Percentage of helium 

:;hown by figures 

FIGURE 12.-Detailed map of the town of Dexter, Kans., showing location of wells sampled and helium 

• . content of gas. 

the wells and the very 

high helium content of 

the gas would compensate in a measure for the 

sm.all volumes that can 

probably be obtained. 

The only other noteworthy occurr~nce of gas 

in the vicinity of Dexter 

was reported from the 

l\1onitor Oil Co.'s well 

in the NE. !- sec. 24. In 

this well a large volunie 

of gas, variously estimated at 9!- to 13 million cubic feet, was encountered at 1,010 feet, 

and an analysis of this 

gas is said tohaveshown 

more than 80 per cent of 

nitrogen. As the wells 

about two-thirds of a 

mile north and south 

of this well . found no 

· gas at this horizon, it is 

evident, however, that 

the gas-bearing area is 

very small. 

• 
CHIE:F SOURCES OF HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 77 

AREA NEAR OTTO. 

As shown in figure 11, several wells have been 

drilled about 6 miles south of Dexter, where 

there is a sn1all dome on the crest of the mai:n 

anticline. '"rhe southernmost of these wells found 

2 1nillion cubic feet of gas at a depth of 1,141 

feet, and the three wells drilled farther north 

on the axis of the fold all found smaller volumes 

at about the san1e horizon. As the wells to the 

west found the sand filled with water, the productiYe area can not extend far down the fiank 

of the fold, but it 1nay extend some distance 

along the axis to the south. Two sampl_es of 

this gas collected by the writer showed 1.9 and 

0.5 per cent of heliu1n. The poorer sample, 

howmrer, is to be regarded with suspicion, for 

in the well fron1 which it was taken the 

pressure was only a few ounces to the square 

inch, and the san1ple 1nay haYe been contam.inated with air. Apparentl)T, therefore, 

this gas is exceptionally rich in heliu1n, and it 

is belie,red that a moderate supply 1night be 

developed by further drilling toward the south. 

AU.l~A SOU'l'HEAS'l' OF OTTO. 

About three years ago two gas wells were 

drilled by the Standish Oil Co. in sec. 17, T. 35 

S., R. 7 E., about 5 n1iles ·southeast of Otto: 

These wells encountered the gas at a depth of 

about 1,475 feet and had initial open flows of 

4! and 5 million cubic feet a daJ, with a rock 

pressure of about 500 pounds to the square inch. 

San1ples of the gas from these wells showed 

0.94 and 1.04 per cent of helium. Acc.ording 

to A. E. Fath, who made a geologic examination 

of the fields for the Geological SurveJ, there are 

no structural features in the Yicinity faYorable 

to the accumulation of gas and there is little 

prospect of an extension of the producing area. 

SEDAN DISTRICT. 

GENERAl, l~EA'l'URES. 

Chautn.uqua County, in which the Sedan 

district is situated, has for many years ranked 

high among the oil-producing counties of Kansns, and the eastern and central parts of the 

county have now been thoroughly prospected. 

Two fair-sized gas fields, the little and Havana 

fields, have been deYeloped in the eastern part 

of the county, and a numL.'r of small fields in 

th~ central P.art-the Sedan district-yield a 

moderate volume of gas. The many samples 

that have been collected and analyzed indicate 

that the gas in the eastern part of the county 

contains less than 0.5 per cent of h~lium but 

that practically all the gas occurring in the 

central ,part at depths shallower than 1,000 

feet .contains between 0.5 and 2 per cent. (See 

results of tests, p. 100.) The western part 

of the county is .practically untested, but 

deYelopmen t is now proceeding ·toward the 

west, and it is probable that the helium-rich 

area wil'l be found to extend a ·considerable 

distance in that direction. 

The location of the Chautauqua County gas 

fields is shown on Plate 1, and the structure 

section on that plate shows the approximate 

stratigraphic position of the samples analyzed. 

It is evident that the decrease in helium content toward the east is related to the geology, 

for the helium-rich gas at Sedan occurs in the 

Ka~sas Qity group and owing to the general 

westward dip of the strata this formation lies 

too close to the surface to be gas-bearing in 

the eastern part ofthe county. In that locality 

production is obtained from lower beds, which 

generally yield gas poor in helium. The easternmost field· in which gas carrying ~s ~uch as 

0.5 per cent of helium has been found is the 

Monet field, about 5 miles east of Sedan. 

The helium-rich gas of ·the Sedan district is 

high in nitrogen and thus too low in heating 

value to be in demand as a:fuel, though owing 

to local conditions considerable volumes of it 

have been produced and used. The gas occurs 

above the oil horizons, however, and unless 

there happens to be a local dCinand for gas as 

fuel it -is generally allowed to go to waste; in 

fact, as it interferes with drilling it is regarded 

by most operators as a nuisance. Because of 

these conditions accurate information as to 

the depth of a shallo.~v gas and as to its volume 

and pressure is Yery difficult to obtain. 

ROGERS POOL. 

The Rogers pool lies just east of Rogers 

station on the Missouri Pacific Railroad, or 

chiefly in sees. 23-26, 35, and 36, T. 33 S., R. 

10 E. (See fig. 13.) It consists of 41 gas wells, 

of which only 22 are now producing. As 

shown on the map, the pool is divided into two 

distinct porti?ns by a strip· of barren territory 

crossing sees. 25 and 26, in whieh 10 dry holes 

have been drilled.· 

The strata exposed in the vicinity of the 

Rogers pool belong to the lower part of the. 
78 HELIUM-BEARING N AT.URAL GAS. 

Shawnee group and the upper part of the 

Douglas group. The Oread limestone, the 

highest formation of the Douglas, crops out in 

the southern part of the field. In the southern 

part of the pool the producing gas is ~ncountered at depths of 700 to 800 feet and lies about 

700 feet beneath the Oread, or near the middle 

of the Kansas City group.: In the northern 

part of the pool, however, the producing sand 

lies at a slightly higher horizon, being encountered at depths of 650 to 750 feet, and in 

thi.3 district a gas sand at 350 to 450 feet is also 

eported by many wells. 

can no_t be determined from surface examinations, and drilling may prove the remainder of 

the uplift to be barre:t;J., but the areas that are 

structurally most favorable have not yet been 

adequately tested. The favorable areas include theN. t sec. 30, the W. t sec. 19, and all 

of sec. 24, and probably also the E. t sec. 13, 

the W. t sec. 18, and the SW. i sec. 23. -Production may also be extended farther west; 

the· gas well in the NE. i sec. 34, for example, 

which is drilled on a monocline, indicates that 

there is at least a small pool in that locality. 

It should be pointed out in this connection 

EXPLANATION 

00008 

Oil well. Abandoned oil well · Gas well Abandoned gas well· Dry hole . Gas 

~-~ well sampled ·"Dry hole" sampled 

Bgures indicate percentage ofhelium 

FIGURE 13.-Map of Sedan district, Kans. showing location of wells sampled and helium content of gas. 

According to P. V. Roundy, who ·made a 

detailed geologic examination of the Sedan 

district, the Rogers pool is assodated in a general way with a structurally high area or broad 

nose which centers in the SE. i sec. 19 and 

extends to the SW. i sec. 23. · The limits of 

the producing area, however, are evidently 

determined by the porosity and continuity of 

the sand, for the barren strip that crosses 

the center of the field lies near the highest 

part of the uplift. Such conditions of course 

that too much weight can not be attached to 

the "dry" holes shown on the map, for these 

wells were drilled for oil, and moderate flows 

of low-pressure gas are generally saved only 

when there is a special need or market for 

them. 

Structural features of the type described 

above occur throughout a large part of western 

Chautauqua County, and it is probable that 

many of them are associated with gas pools 

and that the gas occurring at depths of 900 

• 
CHIEF SOURCES OF HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 79 

feet or less for at least several miles west of 

· Rogers is rich in helium. 

The first wells in the Rogers pool were 

drilled in 1912, and by the ·end of 1913 18 

wells, with a combined open flow of 63 million cubic feet a day and an average rock pressm·e of 221 pounds to the square ·inch, had 

been finished. The initial open flow of some of 

the wells was as much as 8 million cubic feet a 

day, though ·the average was about half.that 

figm·e. ·By the summer of 1914 24 wells,. having an average open flow of 2! million cubic 

feet a day, were in operation. During 1914 

the field produced only 1! to 2-l. million cubic 

feet daily, chiefly owing to the poor quality of 

the gas for heating. During the :winter of 

· 1915-16 the field was taken over by another 

gas company and was made to produce as 

much as 10 million cubic feet a day. Since 

that time the production has gradually declined until in August, 1918, it amounted to 

only t'Lbout 1 million cubic feet daily. At that 

time the average daily open flow of the 22 producing wells was 260,000 cubic feet, their average rock pressure was 38 po.unds to the square 

inch, and their combined daily open flow was a 

little less than 6 million cubic feet. 

Although the foregoing figures indicate that 

the pool is now almost exhausted, it is believed that this condition is due partly to the 

fact that the gas commands so low a price 

that the well owners have not felt justified in 

going to much expense in keeping the wells 

in proper condition. The oil wells· of Chautauqua County, though generally small; are 

remarkable for their long life, a feature evidently due to the fine grain of the oil sand and 

to the rather low 'gas pre~sure. Whether or 

not the gas sands in this area are also capable 

of unusually long continued production it will 

be impossible to say, for practically. all the 

gas wells visited by the writer in the Sedan 

~district had suffered from lack of attention. 

Despite this condition, however, many old 

wells have held up remarkably well, and there 

is reason to believe that the fields .of the Sedan 

district would, with proper care, yield a 

moderate output for a long period. 

It should not be inferred from the foregoing 

remarks that the Rogers ,pool itself can still 

be rejuvenated, though undoubtedly the production could temporarily be somewhat increased. So far alb can be learned from a study 

of the structure, ho,vever, there is still good 

territory in the vicinity, and it is probable that 

the producing area could be somewhat extended. Moreover, there is every reason to· 

suppose that similar pools could be developed 

in the central and western parts of the county 

and that their gas would prove equally rich in 

helii.rm. 

Two pipe-line samples of gas from the Rogers 

pool average 0.96 per cent of helium, and 

1.4 samples from individual wells contained 

from 0.86 to 1.16 per cent. One sample showed 

only 0.59 per cent, but it may have been contaminat(,3d by air, and on the other· hand gas 

from the well in the .NE. i sec. 34 (see fig. 13) 

showed 1.912 per cent. All these gases are 

from the sands between 650 and about 800 feet 

in depth, and the gas occurring at 350 to 450 

feet in the northern part of the Rogers pool 

probably contains well over 1 per cent of 

helium. 

The general character of the gas of the Rogers 

pool is shown by analysis 20, page 39. 

AREA NEAR SEDAN. 

Although practically no gas is now produced 

in the areas north of Sedan and between Sedan 

and the Rogers pool, it is stated on good 

authority that many of the oil. wells in these 

areas encountered gas at shallow depths. A 

few samples of this gas, obtained mostly from 

abandoned and practically exhausted wells, 

showed a high content ·of helium. In the district south of Sedan a little gas is now: being 

produced, but all of it is derived from the Peru 

sand, which lies about 500 feet beneath the 

helium-hearing sands of the Rogers pool and 

which yields gas carrying only about 0.4 per 

cent of helium .. It is r'eported, however, that 

wells in several localities encountered gas at 

shallower depths, and it may be presumed that 

this gas contains more than 0.5 per cent of 

helium. 

The richest gas occurs in a sand found at a 

depth of about 400 feet in the area north of 

Sedan. Several wells were finished in this 

sand some years ago to supply fuel for. drilling 

oil wells, but because of the low pressure of 

the gas and its low heating value no care was 

taken of the gas wells, and most of them soon 

became exhausted. However, the Fleming & 

Wadsworth well, nea.r the east quarter corner 

of sec. 27, which was drilled about l907, is said 
80 HELIUM-BEARING ·NATURAL GAS. 

to have had an initial daily open flow of 3 or 4 

million cubic feet, and when visited by the 

writer in July, 1918, it still showed about half 

a million cubic feet, with a pressure of about 

·50 pounds to the square inch. The test of a 

sample of this gas showed 1.94 per cent of 

helium, and an· analysis previously made by 

Prof. Allen showed 55.7 per cent of nitrogen. 

(See analysis 18, p. 39.) About a ;mile east of 

this well, in the southeast corner of sec. 26 and 

the squthwest corner of sec. 25, T. 33 S.,' R. 11 

E., three gas wells were drilled to the 400-foot 

sand about three years ago, but all of them are 

now practically . exhausted: A sample from 

the well in the southeast corner of sec. 26 

showed 1.04 per cent of helium. A dry hole 

in the NE. i sec. 29 is reported to have passed 

a sand capable of yielding 2 or 3 million cubic 

feet of gas daily at a depth of about 400 feet, 

and several wells could doubtless be drilled in 

this locality. Two oil wells drilled several 

years ago just outside the limits of Sedan, near 

the center ofsec. 3, are reported to have found 

a sand yielding 3 or 4 million cubic feet of gas 

a day at a depth of 212 feet. This sand is 

probably equivalent to the 400-feet sand north 

of Sedan, and there is every reason to suppose 

that the gas is very rich in helium. 

It is not to be inferred from t·he foregoing 

statements that all the area for 2 or 3 rniles 

north of Sed~n is thought to be underlain by 

the shallow gaR. It is even irnpossible to state 

·that all the wells referred to draw from the 

same l;wrizon, though this is highly probable; 

but it is very evident that the sand is either 

discontinuous or is productive only locally. It 

is impossible to predict in ad vance of drilling 

how much of this gas could be obtained, but it· 

seems highly probable that a y.ield of at least 1 

or 2 million cubic feet a day could be maintained 

for a period of two or three years. 

A deeper sand, probably equivalent to that 

found in the Rogers pool, is also encountered 

in the area north and west of Sedan at a depth 

of 600 to 700 feet, and in some localities gas is 

found also in sands at 900 and 1,000 feet. The 

relation of the sands in this area is shown by the 

following well log: 

Log of Allen Mcintosh well No. 1, in the southeast corner of 

the SW.! NE.! sec. 16, T. 33 S., R. 11 E. 

Feet. 

Soil. ......................... ·.. 0-3 

Shale, black.................... 3-63 

Lime, Oread.................. 63-83 

Shale, red..................... 83-140 

Sand; three bailers of water. . . . 140-150 

Shale, black................... 15D-160 

Sa:J?.d; hole full of water.. . . . . . . 160-280 

Shale, black.................... 280-410 

Sand...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 410:-430 

Shale, black.................. 430-455 

Sand. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455-465 

Shale, black.................... 465-708 

Sand, hard; gas................ 708-712 

Sand, soft.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 712-720 

Shale, black.................... 720-765 

Lime, white................... 765-768 

Shale, black.................... 768-908 

Sand; gas...................... 908-920 

Shale, white....... . . . . . . . . . . . . 920-945 

Sand. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 945-955 

Shale ............. ~............ 955-960 

Lime......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 960-962 · 

Shale, black.................... 962-972 

Sand; "Salt sand"............ 972-1, 072 

Shale, black .................... 1, 072-1,077 

Shale .......................... 1, 077-1, 130 

Lime .......................... 1,130-1,140 

Sand; "Stray sand" ............ 1, 140-1, 162 

Shale, black .................... 1,162-1,172 

Lime .......................... 1, 172-1, 177 

Shale, black .................... 1, 177-1,283 

Sand, hard; "Peru sand" ...... 1, 283-1, 289 

Shale, black .................... 1, 289-1,313 

Five samples· of gas from the sanrls encountered at depths of 700 to 900 feet were collected 

in the area north and west of Sedan, and their 

helium content was found to range between 

0. 70 and 0.89 per cent. The wells sampled are 

in sees. 16, 17, 27, 28, and 29, T. 33 S., R. 11 E., 

and their location is shown on figure 13. The 

well'in sec. 29. still has an open flow of about 

half a million cubic feet a day, but the other wells 

are practically exhausted. The gas has been 

reported in many oil wells, however, and there 

is no doubt that a moderate production could he 

developed. As already stated, all this gas is 

too low in heating value and too irregular in 

distribution to permit producing it at a prQfit 

for use as fuel, but as a source of helium its 

value should be sufficient to warrant the necessary expense. 

• 
CHIEF SOURCES OF HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 81 

MONETT FIELD. Lansing group. According to A. E. Fath, it is 

In the vicinity of Monett (see Pl. I) gas has roughly equivalent to the sand in the Otto disbeen produced for n~any years, chiefly from the trict, Kans., which yields gas carrying about 1 

Salt sand but in part from deeper sands. The per cent of helium. The structural geology of 

Salt sand in this district is found at a depth of the Pearson district and of the area to the north 

500 to 600 feet. Some of the wells had an has been investigated by K. C. Heald, 42 who 

initial daily open flow of 3 million cubic feet, finds that the field is on a well-defined. though 

though all of them are now very small. The irregular anticline, the· highest point of which 

town of Sedan is supplied by half a dozen wells appears to be in the southeast corner of sec. 30, 

· 28 32 d 33 T 33 S R 12 E th T. 2.7 N., R. 8 E. In this Vicinity there are In sees. , , an . , . ., . . ~ .; e 

combined daily production of which is now less also several minor domes, at l~ast one of which 

thu.n n. million cubic feet. · A sample of the Salt has proved productive. 

sand gas showed 0.57 per cent of helium. As shown by the 12 analyses on page 104, 

This gas has not been systematically devel- the Pearson gas· ranges in helium content 

oped, being undesirable because of its rather between 0.23 and 0.71 per cent, the average as 

low pressure and its low heating value; and it determined by three tests of pipe-line gas being 

is believed that if necessary a production of 2 about 0.50 per cent. The gas occurring in the 

or 3 million cubic feet a day could be developed uppermost sands appears to be somewhat 

and could be maintained for two or three years .. richer in h~lium than ~hat in the lower part of 

Though the heliun1 content of this gas is lower the producing zone. 

than that of the gas to the north and west of The general quality of the Pearson gas is 

Sedan, it is higher than that qf the other gases shown by the first analysis· in the table on 

within a radius of· 35 rriiles. The ~1onett gas page 82. 

l\IYERS FIEJ,n. 

could be rather cheapl)' produced, and .if an extraction plant were erected in the Sedan district 

it 1night prove desirable to treat "the Monett gas 

in connection with the richer product of the 

Rogers and Sedan fields. 

FIELDS IN OSAGE COUNTY, OKLA. 

i PEARSON FIEJ,D. 

'J:'he Pearson field is in the central part of 

Osage Count)', Okla., principally in sees. 10 to 

20, T. 27 N., R. 8 E., on the Midland Valley 

Railroad .. In July, 1918, the Pearson field 

contained 17 producing wells having an average rock pressure of about 125 pounds to· the 

square inch and a total open flow of about 40 

million cubic feet a day. The production of 

the field during May amounted to 146 million 

cubic feet, or an average of 4.7 million cubic 

feet daily, though it is believed that with some 

additional drilling 10 or 15 million cubic feet a 

day could easily be produced. 

Most of the gas produced in the Pearson 

· field is obtained fron1 sands lying at depths 

between 750 and 1,000 feet, although several 

wells recently drilled derive their gas from a 

sand at about 1,450 feet. The main producing 

sand lies 100 to 400 feet below the Oread limestone, of the Douglas group and therefore near 

the base of the Douglas or the top of the 

The Myers field is about 6 miles southeast of 

the Pearson field, in the northeast corner of 

T. 26 N., R. 8 E. In July, 1918, the field contained 10 wells having an average rock pressure of· about 240 pounds to the square inch 

and a total open flow of about 15 million· cubic 

feet a day. During May the average daily 

production was 1,392,000 cubic feet, or only 

about 9 per cent of the open flow. 

The Myers gas is derived from. two sands, the 

shallower lying at a depth of about 550 feet 

and the deeper at a depth of about 1,150 feet. 

These sands are believed to be equivalent to 

those that are productive in the Pearson field. 

Although flows as high as 5 million cubic feet 

a day are found in the shallower sand, the pressure is low, and in July, 1918, all but two of 

the wells had been deepened to the 1,150-foot 

sand. 

The field is on a small dome or. anticline 

similar to that from which the gas at Pearson is 

produced. The wells already drilled apparently define this dome, but there are other structural features of the same type in the vicinity 

which when developed will doubtless furnish a 

large volume of gas. 

•~ Geologic strurture of the northwestern part of the Pawhuska quadrangle, Okla.: U.S. Geol. Survey Bul .. 1391, pp. 82, 89, 1918. 
82 HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 

A pipe-line sample of the Myers gas was 

found to contain 0.37 per cent of helium, and 

three samples from individual wells carried 

0.27, 0.35, and 0.43 per cent. (See p. 104.) 

The helium content of the Myers gas is thus 

distinctly lower than that of the gas of the 

Pearson field, though the gas is believed to 

occur at about the same horizon. As shown 

by the third analysis in th@ following table, 

the Myers gas is considerably lower in nitrogen 

than the Pearson gas: . 

Analyses of ga.'Jjrom Uw Pearson and Myers fields, Oklahoma. 

Carbon dioxide(C02) ••••••• 

Oxygen (02) •••••••• --------

Methane (CH4) ••••••••• ----

Ethane (C:,~H ) ••••••• ------. 

Residue (N2, etc.) ........ . 

Pearson 

field, gas 

Myers :fielrl. 

at 900 feet. Gas at 317 Gas at 1,150 

0.00 

. 21 

51. 91 

1.12 

46.86 

feet. feet. 

0.25 

.12 

76:60 

2.25 

20. 78 

0.86 

.00 

58.60 

5.69 

34.85 

1----1-----------· 

Heating value (British 100. 00 100.00 

thermalunits)........... 520 778 

100.00 

664 

In sec. 23, T. 26 N., R. 9 E., about 5 miles 

southeast of the Myers field proper, large volumes of shallow gas are reported. A deep well 

in that locality is said to have encountered a 

sand yielding 6 million cubic feet a day at a 

depth of 31 7 feet, one yielding 3 million cubic 

feet at a depth of 410 feet, and one yielding 

2 million cubic feet at a depth of 660 feet. 

This gas was not tested for helium, but, as 

shown by the second analysis in the above 

table, the gas at 317 feet carries 20.78 per cent 

of nitrogen and is probably at. least as rich in 

helium as the gas in the main Myers field. 

· PROSPECTIVE FIELDS IN WESTERN OSAGE COUNTY. 

The eastern part of Osage County comprises 

some of the richest oil and gas territory in the 

Mid-Continent region, but that portion lying 

west of the· Pearson and Myers fields is practically undeveloped. This condition Is due 

chiefly to the fact that the lands throughout 

the county are the common property of the 

Osage Tribe, and the leasing of the lands for 

oil and gas development has therefore been 

strictly controlled by the Government. Dur-

·ing the last year or two, however, a great many 

leases in the western Osage country have been 

sold, and within a short time a number of pools 

will doubtless be discovered. 

Production in the eastern part of Osage 

County and in Washington, Nowata, and Rogers counties, still farther east, is obtained from 

sands beneath the "Oswego lime," or chiefly 

in the Cherokee shale. · As shown by many 

analyses, the Cherokee gas is characterized by 

rather low nitrogen content, and therefore only 

a. few samples of it were tested for helium. 

None of these samples contained more than 

0.1 per cent. The location of the principal gas 

fields in this region and data as to the helium 

or nitrogen content of the gas are shown on 

Plate I. 

Because of the prevailing westerly dip the 

Cherokee sands lie at considerable depths in 

the western. part of Osage County, but higher 

sands which are productive elsewhere in northern· Oklahoma and southern Kansas lie at 

moderate depths. The geology of the western 

Osage country has been examined in d.etail by 

members of the Geological Survey,43 and a 

great many small folds of the type· that has 

proved so productive farther east have been · 

found. . There is therefore no reason to doubt 

that the western Osage country will yield large 

volumes of gas and that a number of fields 

similar to those at Pearson and Myers will be 

developed in this region. 

From all the information at hand it appears 

that at least the northwestern part of Osage 

County should be productive of gas fairly rich 

in helium. The gas-bearing zones which occur 

at shallow depths in the western part of Osage 

County are equivalent to those which contain 

helium-rich g·as in Chautauqua County and the 

eastern part of Cowley County, Kans. The 

district near Otto, Kans., for example, in which 

the gas contains 1 per cent of helium, lies only 

about 2 miles· from the northern edge of Osage 

County and directly along the strike of the 

rocks. ~oreover, the fact that the Myers field 

produces gas averaging about 0.4 per cent of 

helium and the Pearson field, about 6 miles to 

the west; produces gas averaging at least 0.5 

per cent, suggests a progressive increase in 

helium content toward the west. It is therefore believed that gas containing at least 0. 75 

per cent of helium will be encountered in the 

northwestern part of Osage County at fairly 

shallow depths and that in all probability large 

volumes of such gas will be available. So far 

43 ·white, David, and others, Structure and oil .and gas resources of the 

Osage Reservation, Okla.: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 686 (in press). 

• 
.. 

CHIEF SOURCES OF HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 83 

ns can be judged this area. comprises the best 

prospectiv-e helium territory in the United 

States. 

OTHER MID-CONTINENT FIELDS. 

In addition to the fields already described, 

which are noteworthy u.s present or prospectiv-e 

sotu·ces of gas fairly rich in helium, there are 

many districts iB. the :Mid-Continent region that 

yield small v-olumes of helium-rich gas or large 

v-ohunes of gas containing only about 0.25 per 

cent of helium. The location and helium content of these supplies are shown on .Plate I, 

and data. regarding the volume of the gas, the 

depth from which it is obtained, etc., are given 

in the tables at the end of this report. 

MINOR Jo'IELDS IN KANSAS. 

Cady and McFarland in 1906 found a number of gases that contained more than 0.25 per 

cent of helium; in fact, as shown on Plate I, 

all the Ka.n~a.s gases examined appear to contain mea.stu·a.ble proportions of helium, and the 

av-erage content of all the gas that has been 

produced in the State is probably more than 

0.15 per cent. Many of the fields investigated 

by Cady and McFarland are now, however, 

practically exhausted, for the gas resources of 

Kansas hav-e been heavily drawn upon in the 

last 15 years, and since 1908 there has been a 

great decline in production. (See fig. 14.) A 

100 

eo 

/ 

--- 0 

1906 

v ~ 

I 

I 

I 

I ' I 

,.,' 

1908 

\. 

\ / 

X 

!l 

~I \ ~/ I 

1910 

,' 

I 

/ , , 

~--

,J ---

' ~ / ,., - """ 

1912 1914 1916 1918 

FIGURE 14.-Dingmm showing production of nntuml gas in Kansas and 

Oklahoma. 

temporary increase was recorded in 1915-16, 

owing chiefly to the discovery of the Eldorado 

and Augusta. fields, but production fell off 

again in 1917-18, and there seems to be small 

prospect of any notable increase in the future. 

One ~f the richest gases reported by Cady 

and McFarland . was that from Eureka, in 

Greenwood County, two samples of which were 

found to carry 1.50 per cent of heliun1. The 

Eureka field was investigated in 1918 and was 

found to be practically exhausted, though a 

sample was collected and found to contain 1.42 

per cent of helium. The Moline and New 

Albany fields in Elk County, and the Burlington field, in Coffey County, all of which produce 

gas carrying about 0.5 per cent of helium, and 

the Fredonia field, in Wilson County, which 

yields gas carrying about. 0.6 per cent, furnished considerable volumes of gas in 1906 but 

now produce only an insignificant supply. The 

same is true of the Buffalo, Altoona, and 

Neodesha fields,. in Wilson County, and the 

Chanute field, in Neosho County, all of which 

produce gas carrying about 0.3. per cent of 

helium; and of the Spring I-Iill field, in Johnson 

County, and the Garnett field, in Anderson 

County, which yield gas carrying about 0.4 per· 

cent. 

A number of fields have of course been discovered in Kansas since Cady and McFarland 

made their survey, but all of them except the 

Eldorado, Augusta, Otto, and Sedan fields are 

either small or yield gas rather poor in helium. 

The Beaumont field, in the southwestern part 

of Greenwood County, is perhaps the· most 

promising, for it yields gas containing 0.86 per 

cent of helium. Although in July, 1918, there 

was only one gas well in this field, considerable 

volumes of gas were reported in all the surrounding oil wells, and it is probable that a production of several million cubic feet a day could 

be developed. A small supply of gns carrying 

0.65 per cent of helit;un has also been recently 

found near Virgil, and a larger supply containing 0.36 per cent near ';roronto, Greenwood 

County. Near Winfield, Cowley County, there 

is an old field which is still capable of producing 

almost a million cubic feet a clay of gas carrying 

0.38 per cent of helium. 

In Elk. and Chautauqua counties ~everal 

fields have recently been discovered that yield 

gas carrying more than 0.33 per cent of helium. 

Near Longton and Oak Valley, in the southeast 

corner of Elk County, there are two small 

pools of shallow gas containing 0.55 and 0.40 

per cent of helium. In September, 1918, 

each of these pools was producing about 1 
84 HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS •. 

million cubic feet a day, and the supply eould 

doubtless be increased by further drilling. oA 

large volume of deep gas was als<;> discovered in 

1918 near Oak' Valley, but it contains ·only 

0.001 ·per cent of helium. The gas of the Hale 

and Havana fields, in the eastern part of Chautauqua County, averages about 0.36 per cent 

of helium, and in September, 1.918, these fields 

were together producing about .H) million cubic 

feet a day. This supply can doubtless be increased. Most of the gas produced in the 

Chautauqua field, in the southern part of the 

county, is derived .from deep sands and contains very little helium, but a small supply of 

gas is also obtained at a depth of 600 to 800 

feet, and this carries 0.21 to 0.43 per cent. 

MINOR FIELDS IN OKLAHOMA. 

· As shown in fig~e 14, Oklahoma produces a 

very large quantity of gas annually, and since 

1906 the production has steadily increased. In 

1917 Oklahoma furnished about 137 billion 

cubic feet and became the second largest gasproducing State in the Union. As shown on 

Plate I, however, the Oklahoma area of gas 

containing more than 0.5 per cent of helium is 

practically confined to the northwestern part of 

Osage County, whereas a very large proportion 

of the gas produced in Oklahmna is obtained 

from fields east of that area and from those in 

the southern part of the State. The average 

helium content of Oklahoma gas is therefore 

exceedingly small, and only a few fields outside 

of the western part of Osage County deserve 

special me:Q.tion. 

As pointed out on page 40, the shallow gas 

produced in the western part of the northern 

Oklahoma petroleum region is characteristically 

rich in nitrogen but p9or in helium. ·For example, in the Pearson gas the ratio of nitrogen 

to helium is. probably almost 100, and it attains 

a similar value in several other Oklahoma gases, 

whereas in the rich Kansas gas tll,e ratio is 

usually less than 50. Jn other words, a Kansas 

gas containing 50 per cent of nitrogen is likely 

to carry about 1 per cent of helium,· whereas an 

Oklahoma gas carrying· the same proportion of 

·nitrogen may contain only 0 .. 5 per cent of 

helium. · High-nitrogen gases have been found 

at many localities in the western parts of Osage 

and Pawnee oounties and in Payne, Noble, and 

Kay counties, Okla., but it must be borne in 

mind that a high~nitrogen gas in this district 

is not necessarily a gas rich in helium. 

The Pearson and Myers fields·, in Osage 

County, have already been described, and the 

prospective importance of the western Osage 

country as a source of helium-bearing gas has 

been pointed out. The only other field yet 

developed in the Osage region that may be of 

value as a source of helium is the Hominy field, 

which lies about 25 miles south of Pearson. 

This is primarily an oil field, but most of the 

wells report large volumes of gas at depths of 

about 500 feet. This gas has been cased off, 

but a few wells have been finished in a gas 

sand at' about 1,000 feet. Three analyses of 

Hominy gas, probably that from the.1,000-foot 

horizon, show 15 to 20 per cent of nitrogen, 

and it is probable that the 500-foot gas is still 

.higher in nitrogen and may therefore contain 

enough helium to be of commercial value. 

The Blackwell field, in the northern part of 

Kay County, is one of the largest gas fields in 

Oklahoma. Its productivity is due chiefly to 

the large number of gas-bearing sands present; 

one well, for example, encountered eight gas 

sands between 692 and 3,200 feet, the combined open flow. of which was 116 million cubic 

feet daily.44 Because of the large volumes of 

gas available in the Blackwell field and the 

fact that some of it occurs at shallow depths, 

six samples of the gas from different sands 

were tested for helium, but the highest content 

found was only 0.27 per cent. 

The Ponca City field, in the southern part of 

Kay County, produces a considerable quantity 

of oil and formerly yielded large volumes of 

gas, but the gas resources are now almost exhausted. The gas occurs chiefly at a depth of 

about 500 feet, and the sand is regarded as 

about equivalent to the 950-foot sand at 

Blackwell and more than 1,000 feet stratigraphically higher than the producing sands of 

the Pearson and Myers fields. An analysis of 

the gas by Prof. Allen showed 40.1 per cent of 

nitrogen, but the helium content of gas from 

the same well proved to be only 0.36 per cent. 

The Billings field, in the northern part of 

Noble County, is chiefly a·n oil field, though 

large volumes of gas are encountered at depths 

of 400 to 1,100 feet, and a little of this gas is 

produced to supply the local demand. A 

sample of gas occurring in Permian strata at a 

depth of 500 feet contained, however, only 

0.10 per cent of helium, and a sample from a · 

«4 Petroleu:tn and natural gas in Oklahoma: Oklahoma Gcol. Survey. 

Bull. 19, p. 272, 1917. 
CHIEF SOURCES OF HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 85 

saud at 1,036 feet was found to carry 0.39 per 

cent. As shown by analysis 21, on page 39, 

this gas ·contains 42.5 per cent of nitrogen. 

The Morrison field, in the western part of 

Pawnee County, has produced large volumes 

of gas, though the output is now declining. 

T'he gas occurs at a depth of about 2,000 feet 

and carries 22 to 25 per cent of nitrogen but 

only about 0.24 per cent of helium. 

The Ingalls field,. about 10 miles east of 

Stillwater, Payne County, contains only half 

10 12 

A small supply of gas said to contain 30 per 

cent of nitrogen has been found about 7 miles 

south of Bristow, Creek County, but this gas 

proved to~ contain only 0.15 per cent of helium. 

Large volumes of gas are now produced in 

southern Oklahoma, and further supplies will 

doubtless. be discovered in that region. · All 

the existing ·sources in southern Oklahoma 

have been.sampled, however, and have proved 

to be very poor in helium. (See Pl. III and 

.p. 27.) 

---r----

0 · Gas well 

D Oil well 

8 

Combination well oil and gas 

D 

Well, show of oil 

0 

Dry hole SCALE 

~oo<=o=====oi=====:::Ss.ooo Feet 

I I ~' ~''-11:.._;_ .. /~ CD Abandoned gas well ~. 

6-. tJ0.71 0.71· Percentage ofhoUum 

FIGURE 15.-Map of Petrolia field, Tex., showing location of wells sampled and helium content of the gas. 

a dozen oil and gas wells and is of interest 

cbie.fly because of the high nitrogen content of 

the gas and because of the large flows reported. 

In the first gas well a flow estimated at 21 

NORTH TEXAS REGION. 

PETROLIA FIELD. 

LOCATION AND. EXTENT. 

million cubic feet of gas a day w:as found at The Petrolia field, which is in the northern 

650 feet, another of 57 million cubic feet at part of Clay County; Tex., contains at present 

1,760 feet, and one of 30 million cubic feet at the largest .available supply of helium-bearing 

about 3,200 feet .. The shallow gas was cased gas and has in fact furnished all the· helium so 

off, but the gas at 1,760 feet was produced for far produced by the Governmen~. The field 

about a year. Analyses of this gas showed li~s about 16 miles northeast of the city of 

from 50 to 54 per cent of nitrogen, and a sample·. Wichita Falls, with which it is connected by the 

which is thought to represent the same gas Wichita Valley Railroad. In the north end of 

contained 0.35 per cent of helium. A sample the field is the town of Petrolia, and about 2! 

from a deeper sand carried only 0.05 per cent miles south of the town is the Go-vernment 

of helium. It was not possible to ob.tain a plant for extracting helium. (See fig. 15.) 

sample of the 650-foot gas, which is doubtless The field is elliptical in shape, extending 

richer in helium than that at 1, i60 feet, but it about 3! miles from northeast to southwest and 

is believed that no great supply of either of about 4 miles from northwest to southeast. 

these gases can be developed. In June,.1918, there were some 350 wells 1n the 
86 HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 

Petrolia field, but about 250 of them are oil 

wells, averaging only 300 feet in depth. The 

gas-bearing beds lie at a depth of 1,550 to 

1, 7 50 feet and in places carry some oil. Of 

the wells drilled to this horizon about 65 found 

gas in commercial quantities, and about 35 

found oil. The limits of the field are now 

pretty well defined by dry hole~.- · 

GEOLOGIC OUTLINE. 

The surlace rocks in the Petrolia field belong 

to the Wichita formation, of .Permian age. 

These beds extend ·to a depth of 1,000 feet or 

so, and the deep oil and gas probably occur'in 

•the Cisco formation, of upper Pennsylvanian 

age. 

·As shown in figure 15, the field is on the 

crest of an irregular anticline, the long axis of 

which within .the field trends about northnorthwest. According to Shaw, 45 there is 

probably, however, a branch anticline or nose 

extending to the northeast, and a similar nose 

extending to the northwest. The best production has in general been obtained from the 

highest ·part of the main anticline, although 

there are many local irregularities caused by 

variations in the porosity of the sand. 

Commercial supplies of gas are apparently 

confined to a group of beds which in the center 

of the field lie at depths of 1,500 to 1, 7 50 feet. 

A study of the well logs indicates that there 

are two fairly persistent sands, or groups of 

sands-one lying at a depth of about· 1,550 

feet and the other at about 1, 700 feet. A gas 

zone intermediate between these two is also 

reported in most wells, and there are iri addition 

a number of "stray" sand lenses. All the 

individual sands are discontinuous and irregular, however, and can be traced only for short 

distances.. In most of the wells the sands at 

the three main horizons are all more or less 

productive, .but a few wells have found gas 

only in the lower group of . sands. On the 

other. hand, some of the wells, especially the 

earlier ones, stopped in the upper or· middle 

sands, and the lower ones have not been 

tested. 

The general character of the gas-bearing 

beds is shown in the following partial logs: 

45 Shaw, E. W., Matson, G. C., and Wegemann, C. H., Natural-gas 

resources of parts of north Texas: U. S. Geol. Survey Bull. 629, pp. 

25-41, 1916. 

Typical logs of wells in the Petrolia field, Tex. 

Stine Oil & Gas Co., Stine well 1. 

Feet. 

Water sand ... I, 322-1, 348 

Blue shale _ . . 1, 348-1, 365 

Red rock ...... 1, 365-I, 372 

Blue shale ..... 1, 372-1,470 

White slate .. _. 1, 470-I, 551 

Sand (dry, but 

probably 

represents 

upper gas 

sand in 

other wells). 1, 55I-l, 555 

Shale .. _ ..... ·. 1, .555-1, 682 

Ss.tndy shale. . I, 682-11 694 

Gas sand ....... 1, 694-l, 708 

Blue shale ..... 1, 708-1,719 

Gas sand (16 

million cubic feet). . . . 1, 719-1, 731 

Blue shale .... 1, 731-1,739 

Broken sand .. l, 739--l, 744 

Blue shale .... 1, 744-·1, 750 

Sand shale .... 1, 750-1, 752 

Red shale...... 1, 752-1, 755 

Blue shale ..... 1, 755-1, 757 

Broken sanrl .. I, 757-1,763 

Blue shale... . . 1, 763-1, 783 

Lockridge well 1. 

Feet. 

Shale ......... 1, 165-1, 200 

Black shale... . 1, 200-1, 285 

Dry sand ...... 1, 285-1,300 

Shale ......... 1., 300-I, ::105 

SanJ ........... I,305-1,3I5 

Blue shale.... . 1, 3I5-l, 463 

Gas sand ....... 1, 463-I, 473 

·Red rock ...... 1, 473-I, 485 

Gas sand ....... l, 485-I, 4.90 

Slate and shellfl 1, 490-I, 1129 

Gas sand ....... 1, 529-I, 539 • 

Slate ........... I, 539-I, 567 

Gas sand ....... 1, 567-1:577 

Slate ........... 1:577-1, 606 

Gassand ....... 1,606-I,624 

Slate ........... I,624-1,648 

Gas sand ....... I, 648-I, 660 

Ql!ALITY OF THE GAS. 

Since the Government began operations 1n 

the Petrolia field the helium content of the gas 

has been repeatedly determined and appears t.o 

average about 0.93 per cent. The proportion 

of helium is not constant from week to week, 

however, but varies by as much as 0.1 per cent. 

This is shown by the following tests made by 

different chemists over a period of six: months: 

Tests of the helium content of Petrolia gas. 

Date (1917). Chemist. Per cent of helium. 

June 13 ..... -.- ....... H. P. Cady............. 0. 88 

Oct. 8 .................... do. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 

Oct. 30. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Moore & Yancey. . . . . . . . 966 

Do .............. H. P. Cady............. .89 

Nov. 6 .............. J. C. Satterly........... .95 

Nov. 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... do.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 

Nov.I9 ............. H. P. Cady............. . 945 

Nov.23 ............. J. C. Satterly........... .92 

Nov.19 ............. H. P. Cady............. .954 

Dec. 11. ................... do................. . 985 

These tests show an apparent increase 1n 

helium content from month to month, but 

whether this is a regular increase that is likely 

to continue or srmply a fortuitous variation 
CHIEF SOURCES OF HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 87 

due to analytical error or to . unexplained 

natural causes is not clear. 

The tests of 10 samples of gas from individual wells given on page 86 show a range in 

helium content between 0.65 and 1.18 per cent, 

and the gas in the uppermost group of sands 

seen1s to be somewhat richer than that in the 

others. There is, however, no marked and 

constant difference in. helium content between 

gases from different parts of the producing 

zone, and there apperu·s to be no possibility of 

segregating the richest gas. 

The general quality of the Petrolia gas is 

shown by the following analyses: 

Analyses of gas from the Petrolia field. 

1 2 3 4 

------

Carbon dioxide (C02) •••• 0.2 0. 2 0.0 0.0 

Oxygen (Odf' ............ .0 .0 .0 . 0 

1\§ethane d 14) .......... · 48.4 52.7 51.1 51.5 

E~hane( ~)- .......... · 12.8 9.3 10.0 10.2 

N 1trogen a ( 2) ........... 38. 6 37.8 38. 9 38.3 ------·------ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Heating value (British 

thermal units per cubic 

foot at 0° C. and 760 

millimeters pressure) ... 755 734 730 738 

Specific gravity .......... 0. 78 0.76 0. 76 0. 76 

a Includes helium. 

1,2. Cited from U. S. Geol. Sur\'oy Bull. 629, p. 41, 1916. 1. Gas from 

Matlock woll 1, which supplies Petrolia; analysis by G. A. Burrell, 

Bureau of :Minos. 2. Gas from Beatty well I; analysis furnished by 

Louo Star Gas Co. . 3,4. Pipo-llno smnplos of Petrolia gas~ collected ill September and 

October, 1914 at Fort Worth, 'l'ox., ana analyzed by the Bureau or Mines. Cited from Bureau of Mines 'l'och. Paper 109, p. 7, 1915. 

PRODUCTION OP THE nELD. 

The first gas well in the Petrolia field was 

ch·illed in October, 1907, and was reported to 

have had a 4-minute pressure of 4 70 pounds 

to tbe square inch and a capacity of 8 to 10 

million cubic feet a day. Most of the other 

early wells, however, had initial pressures of 

600 to 740 pounds and open flows of 10 to 40 

million cubic feet. Most of the recent wells 

have come in with pressures of 200 to 300 

pounds and flo·ws of 2 to 15 million c1:1bic feet. 

The average pressure of all wells in the field on 

June 1, 1918, was 82 pounds, and the average 

open flow on January 1, 1918, was 1,686,000 

cubic feet. 

About 65 successful gas wells }).ave been 

ch·illed in the field, and 53 of them are now 

producing. Nine of the thirteen wells drilled 

in 1909 ru·e still producing, though during 1917 

about a dozen wells were exhausted and abandoned. Nearly all the producing wells were 

drilled by oil companies· in the search for oil, 

and in many wells much gas was wasted before 

the well was taken over by the gas company. 

The following table gives statistics of the 

decline of rock pressure arid open flow and also 

the quantity of gas marketed by the Lone Star 

Gas Co. The figures showing production for 

1916 and especially for 1917 are low, for during 

these years much gas was lost through pipe-line 

leaks. The total gas marketed by the Lone 

Star Co. to date is about 60 billion cubic feet, 

and it is probable that nearly 10 billion cubic 

feet has been marketed by other companies. . It 

seems safe to assume that 20 billion cubic feet 

has been used for fuel in the field, wasted in drilling or repairing wells, and lost through pipeline leaks, making a total of approximately 90 

billion cubic feet remQved ·from the sands. 

Rock pressure, open-flow capacity, and partial production of 

Petroliafield, 1910-1918. 

Average Open flow on Jan. 1. 

rock Gas marketed pressure 

Year. Jan.l Num- Combined Average by Lone Star 

(pounds berof oo,en flow ~rwell GnsCo. (M 

pein~~):u-e wells 1 cubic ( cubic . cubic feet). 

tested. feet). feet). 

-- 1910 .. ; .. -.. .................. ........... .. ............... .. ............. 1,583,080 

1911. ....... .................. ------ .................. ............... 5,175,196 

1912 ........ 659 ........... .............. ............. 7,186,322 

1913 ........ 621 ......... ................. ---··-· 10,089,135 

1914 ........ 511 ........... ............... ·····-- 9,683,293 

1915 ........ 318 41 365,090 8,904 8,999,837 

1916 ........ 239 43 272,.345 6,484 8,945,522 

1917 ........ 174 46 190,503 4,141 6,101,167 

1918 ........ 87 45 75,855 1,686 ........... 

DURATION OF THE SUPPLY. 

Figure 16 shows graphically the decline of 

average rock pressure and the number of wells 

producing ·by months from 1912 to 1918. The 

decline of average open-flow capacity from 

January 1, 1915, to January 1, 1918, is also 

shown. The curve sketched in the diagram 

indicates that the pressure will reach zero in 

1921. However, as the form of the curve for 

past years has been determined partly by the 

production of the field, which reached 45 million cubic feet on certain days during the winter 

of1917-18, it is evident that if the production 

of the field were reduced to 12 or.15 million feet 

a day the curve would flatten and the field's 

life would be extended by a numl;>er of months. 
.. 

88 HELIUM-;BEARING NATURAL GAS. 

Any new wells drilled in largely exhausted 

territory will tend to steepe11. the ~urve, unless 

prod.uction is held back, but wells drilled in 

relatively undepleted areas will, if sU<~cessful, 

raise and flatten the curve. It will doubtless 

·also be possible to reduce the line ·pressure 

below atmospheric ·pressure and thus extend 

the :field's life beyond the point indicated. 

In 1916 Shaw 46 estimated the original 

volume of gas in the Petrolia :6.eld to be 120 

billion cubic feet, using the following factors: 

Area of the field, 15 square miles; avera~e 

thickness of sand, 30 feet; porosity of sand; 20 

per cent; and original rock pressure, 725 pounds 

to the square inch.· In 1918 the writer made an 

independent estimate on the basis of somewhat 

lower than would be expected from the est~­

mate of the total gas marketed and wasted (90 

billion cubic feet). rhe discrepancy may be 

due to the fact that the :field contains several 

areas which are probably productive but which 

have never been drilled and in which, therefore, 

the press:ure is considerably above 82 pounds 

to the square inch. If these areas prove to be 

productive, the true average pressure for the 

:field in July, 1918, was probably over 100 

porinds, and the quantity of gas remaining 

was probably nearer 25 billion cubic feet. 

On the other hand, it must be recognized 

that the foregoing method of estimating the 

volume of gas remaining is likely to give results somewhat too high, for it is based on. the 

1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1'919 1920 192.1 

:z: 

u 

700 

650 

600 

550 

~ 500 

c: 

<( 

:;:) 450 0 

c/) 

l5 400 Cl. 

(/) 

0 350 z 

:::> 

·~ 300 

uJ 

~ 250 c/) 

c/) 

w 

a: zoo (). 

ISO 

100 

50 

0 

------1.,._ 

50 

'::! 40 

~ 

3: 30 

0 

~~20 :E 

~ 10 

0 

't\ 

I '1,. !!>,.. ~ 

.ui!>C 

;)' 

<>,.. 

"'.r. 

--~ ~--

'%.~~ -1 

-

-

_r-~ ..-f---..r- -

~ -

;:-...~ -

lrl--, -

Ill --- -:-1 

-------- 0 

FIGURE 16.-Curve showing average closed pressure and average open flow of gas wells of Lone Star Gas Co. in the Petrolia field, Tex. 

different factors but arrived at the same figure. 

If we assume for the moment that the decline 

in rock pressure is an . exact index of the decrease in volume of gas i:ri the sand, and accept 

· 120 billion cubic feet as the original volume, it 

is obviously possible to calculate the amount 

remaining in the sands at any given date. For 

example, in July, 1918, when the average rock 

pressure was 82 pounds to the squar.e inch, it 

would appear that about 131 billion cubic feet 

of gas remained in the sands, or a supply of 15 

million cubic feet a day for 21 years. This is 

somewhat lower than the estimate based on the 

curve showing decline in pressure and is also 

46 Op. cit., pp. 36-40. 

assumption that the decline in rock pressure 

is due wholly to the removal of gas and is ~ot 

affected by other conditions. If the pressure 

is being partly maintained by water in the 

sands, which migrates up the dip as the gas is 

removed, it is evident that the calculated 

volume of gas may be considerably greater 

than the true volume. In the Petrolia :field 

there are some indications that water may be 

following the gas up the dip and thus main-

·taining the pressure to some extent, though 

water troubles have not been serious. Most 

of the old wells show some water, but it is 

probably top water that is leaking down behind 

the casing rather than water in th~ gas sands. 
.r 

• 

CHIEF SOURCES OF HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 89 

POSSIDILITY OF EXTENSIONS OF THE FIELD. 

Although the two foregoing estimates agree 

in placing the life of the field at two an~ onehalf to tlu-ee years from the middle of 1918, 

expe~·ieuce in other are~s indicates that several 

factors tend to prolong the life of a field somewhat beyond the period estimated. Few if 

any fields are known that were capable of supplying as much as 45 million cubic feet a day 

against positive line pressure in the third year 

before their complete exhaustion. The chief 

factors tending to prolong the life of a field are 

the probability of discovering small extensions 

of the field and the tendency in the later part 

of the life of a field toward more efficient conservation and toward the utilization of small 

flows. · 

The Petrolia field is now pretty well bounded 

by dry holes, and ·there is no reason to expect 

any important extension of the producing area, 

but there are several small undrilled districts 

which appell.r promising. The largest of these 

is the supposed branch anticline on the northeastern slope of the main fold, which includes 

at least a square mile of undrilled territory. 

(See fig·. 15.) Another possible area is at the 

south edge of the field, in blocks 61, 71, and 72. 

There are several wells in this area listed as 

dry holes, but at least one of them is reported 

to have had a daily capacity of ~bout 7 million cubic feet. In the western part of the 

.field there is also a strip of territory about half 

a mile wide and 1! miles long, which has not 

been properly tested. Finally, there is a possibility of finding a small pool of gas about 2 

miles west of the main field. An old well 

about a mile west of the field has been producing enough gas to furnish fuel for drilling 

wells ·for years. About a mile stil~ farther 

west is a group of oil wells about 1,000 feet 

deep and one gas well which found a sand 

yielding 6 million cubic feet a day at a depth 

of 1,671 feet, or about the horizon of the gas 

~ands in the main field. The gas from this well 

was sampled and found to contain 1.18 per 

cent of helium. 

The chance of increasmg the supply by finding deeper sands, however, is not particularly 

promising, as a number of deep wells on the 

outskirts of the field have encountered a great 

thickness of hard, water-bearing limestone at a 

depth of about 2,000 feet. There are, however, about eighteen gas wells within the field 

which do not penetrate the entire gas-bearing 

zone, and these wells· could doubtless be improved by deepening. 

Aside from the probability of extending the 

field, the effects of rigid conservation should be 

considered. The Petrolia gas is too high in 

nitrogen to be entirely satisfactory as a fuel, 

but it is rich in the higher hydrocarbons, which · 

are condensed as gasoline, and it also has a 

special value as a source of helium. For these 

reasons it should be possible with the powerful 

compressor plant already installed to handle 

profitably wells with flows as low as half a million cubic feet a day; and whether many large 

wells can yet be brought in around the edges of 

the field or not, it is fairly certain that anumber of such small wells can be developed. 

Moreover, the value of the gas justifies every 

precaution to reduce the waste of gas during 

drilling, as well as to .keep the wells operat-· 

ing at the highest standard of efficiency. 

OTHER FmLDS IN NORTHERN TEXAS. 

Irr 1916, when a careful survey of the gas resources of northern Texas was made by Shaw 

and Matson,47 the only large fields were the 

Petrolia and· Mexia-Groesbeck fields. Since 

that time, however, the great oil and gas pools 

in the Ranger region have been discovered, and 

an enormous potential production of gas has 

already been developed. All ·sources of supply 

in the Ranger region and _elsewhere in northern 

Texas were sampled in. the summer of 1918, but 

none of the gase~ were found to be rich in 

helium. None of these gases, however, occur 

at the horizon of the Petrolia gas, and as the 

limits of the producing areas are still undefined and prospecting .is still active it is possible 

that supplies of helium-rich gas will yet be 

discovered. , 

The Electra and Burkburnett fields, a short 

distance west of Petrolia, produce only o~l, 

which is derived from about the same horizon 

as the gas at Petrolia. Still farther west, in 

the central part of Wilbarger County, four 

wells drilled some years ago found small 

supplies of gas probably at a horizon somewhat 

above that of the ·productive sands at Petrolia. 

These wells are now exhausted, and no samples 

of the gas could be obtained. 

On the Matthews ranch, in the southern part 

of Throckmorton County,. five wells have been 

47 Shaw, E. W., Matson, G. C., and Wegemann, C. H., op. cit. 
90· HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 

drilled two of which found small volumes of ' APPALACHIAN REGION. 

gas at a depth of 1,050 f"eet. One of the Wells VINTON COUNTY FIELD, OHIO. 

was abandoned after two years of very moder- The field in Vinton County, Ohio, as at present 

ate use, and the other had in July, 1918, an developed centers in Richland Township (T. 9 _ 

open flow of less than half a million cubic feet N., R. 18 W.), but development is extending 

a day. Two samples of the gas tested for into the neighboring townships and the limits 

helium showed 0.22 and 0. 73 per cent. The of the field are not yet defined. The field lies 

district was not visited by the writer, but in about 60 miles south of Columbus and about 

the opinion of the operator who .drilled the 3 miles west of the town of McArthur, on the 

wells there is little prospect of developing a Hocking Valley Railroad. . · 

commercial supply of the gas. The main producing sand in the Vinton 

The Moran field, in the southeast corner of County field is in the Clinton sand, which is 

Shackelford County, contains about a dozen encountered at depths ranging between 1, 700 

gas wells and a somewhat large: number of and 2,400 feet. (See p .. 102.) The accumulaoil wells. One of the gas wells Is 2, 930 feet tion of gas is not controlled by folding of the 

and another about 2, 700 feet deep, but the rocks but chiefly by the fact that the eastwardothers are approximately 2,000 feet deep. dipping Clinton sand feathers out and merges 

The open flow of the wells ranges between into shale in the. western part of the county, 

3 million and 15 million cubic feet a day, and the gas having" apparently migrated up the dip 

in July, 1918, the daily capacity of the field and collected in the thinning edge of the sand. 

was perhaps 15 or 20 million cubic feet. Five Similar conditions prevail along the strike of 

samples of Moran gas were tested and fou~d to the rocks as far to the north as Cleveland/8 

contain from 0.27 to 0.41 per cent of hehum. and the sand is thus productive in many areas 

A pipe-line sample collected in ~an~ary,. 1918, in a ·broad belt extending north and south in 

contained 0.38 per cent,. b~t a pipe-hne sample central Ohio. (See fig. 5.) The sand is somecollected in July showed only 0.27 per cent. what variable in porosity and, of course, does 

In the Ranger, Caddo, and Breckenridge not everywhere yield gas, but the Clinton 

fields, in Stephens and Eastland counties,. oil fields broadly considered, form an almost 

and gas are produced chiefly from the Srmth- conthtuous belt of productive territory. The 

wick shale and Marble Falls limestone at depths Vinton County pool lies at the southern extremof 3,000 to ~,500 feet,· and this gas· contai~s ity of the belt and is separated from the main 

less than 0.1 per cent· of helium. One well ~n fields by an area that has not yet proved pr.o- -

the Breckenridge field, however, found gas In ductive, though a small pool has been ~Isthe Strawn formation at a depth of 2,230 feet covered in the southern part of Hocking 

and a sample of this gas carried 0.44 per cent County, about 8 miles north of th~ main Vinof helium. ton field. The gas in the Hockmg County 

In the La Casa field, in Stephens County, pool contains less helium than that in the Vinand in the "Strawn and Mineral Wells fields, in ton field, and most of the Clinton gas north of. 

Palo Pinto County, large volumes of gas are Logan contains little nitrogen, and is presumproduced from the Strawn formation. . Two ably very poor in helium. It would therefore 

samples of gas from these fields showed only appear that the area in which the Clinton gas 

a trace of helium, and six others carried be- may be regarded as a source of. helium does ~ot 

tween 0.17 and 0.32 per cent, but the richer extend far north of Hocking County; Its 

samples represent only a very small part of the ·southern liniit, however, remains to be detersupply. (See p. 106.) mined. . 

Gas has been found in several wells near D;rilling in the Vinton County area became 

Bangs, .in the western part of Bro~ County, active in 1915. In September, . 1918, there 

and two samples of this gas contained 0.35 were about 180 producing wells ill the county, 

and 0.38 per cent of helium. A sample ·of gas having an estimated potential produ?tion of 

from a well south of Coleman, in Coleman "65 million cubic feet a day. As considerable 

County, contained 0.22 per cent of helium, ~reas that may be re~arded as practically 

but the gas of the Tfickham field, about 20 48 Rogers, G. s., The Cleveland gas field, Cuyahoga County, Ohio: . 

miles to the southwest, contains none. u.s. Geol. survey Bull. 661, pp. 1-68,1918. 

• 
• 

• 

CHIEF SOURCES OF HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 91. 

proved remain to be drilled, it is believed that tures of these fields have been described on· 

the production could be increased to 100 mil- pages 32-33. 

lion cubic feet a day and could b~ maintained 

at this figure for several years. Th .. e rock AVAILABLE SUPPLY OF HELIUM IN THE UNITED 

STATES. 

pressure of the wells in September, 1918, averaged about 700 pounds to the square inch. Gas fields are usually short lived in compariEighteen samples of Clinton gas from the son with oil fields, but local conditions cause so 

Vinton County field showed au average helium much variation in the way in which gas wells are 

conte:q.t of 0.37 per cent, the extremes being handled that it is impossible to formulate any 

0.48 and 0.20 per cent. (See p. 102.) Two rule as to the length of the productive period. 

samples of gas from a sand near the horizon of The maximum possible production of a gas 

the Berea, about 1,800 feet stratigraphically well is its open flow-that is, the volume of gas 

above the Clinton, contained 0.39 and 0.40 that it is capable of delivering against atmosper ·cent, but the volume of this gas available pheric pressure-but if the well is allowed thus 

is insignificant in comparison with that of the to flow open its yield diminishes very rapidly. 

Clinton gas. Two samples of Clinto:r{ gas from ~n e:ery field it is customary to maintain. a 

the small pool in Hocking County contained definite pressure in the pipe line to which the 

0.30 and 0.32 per cent of helium. _ well is attached and thus prevent the well from. 

On the as~umption that the Vinton County ·producing more than a part of its capacity. In 

. field is capable of producing 75 million cubic some fields, however, the demand is such as to. 

feet daily of gas carrying 0.37 per cent of he- warrant taking 50 or 60 per cent of the open· 

lium, it is evident that the daily production of flow, whereas in others the production is held 

helium would be 277,500 cubic feet, which is down to 20 or 25 per cent. By holding back: 

more than twice as much as the Petrolia field the production the life of the field is of course 

is capable of producing. The utilization of lengthened and water troubles are more likely 

the Vinton County gas as a commercial squrce to be avoided, thus possibly increasing the 

of helium, however, depends entirely on con- total ~olume of gas ultimately recovered. . 

ditions limiting the process of extraction. The Because of this variation in operating con-. 

results so far obtained in the experimental dit~ons, no estimate of t~e available supply of. 

pln,nts at Fort Worth indicate that the expense hehum that could be given here would have 

of treating a gas carrying only 0.37 per cent of any permanent val':e; and furthermore, until 

helium, by either the Linde or the Claude processes of extractwn are perfected it will be· 

process, would be prohibitive, but the Jeffries- uncertain how lean a gas can be profitably 

Norton process offers promise of reducing the treated. In Septembe~, 1918, the writer esticost to a point at which such a gas could be mated that the Pet:ro~Ia, Eldorado, Augusta, 

profitably treated. If this can be done the Dexter-Otto, and Sedan districts, all of which 

large volume of gas available in Vinton County yie~d gas averaging more than ·0.85 per Cj3nt of 

and its high pressure render the field ve!y hehum, wer.e capable of. produ~ing a total of· 

attractive as a source of helium. 363,800 cubic feet of helium daily for the next 

ROCKY MOUNTAIN AND PACIFIC COAST 

REGIONS. 

Gas containing about 0.3 per cent of helium 

has been found at three localities in the Rocky 

Mountain and Pacific coast regions, but the 

volumes avnilable do not appear to be large. 

In view of the low helium content of the gas, 

the uncertainty as to the volume of the supply, 

and the location of the fields at considerable 

distances from manufacturing centers, these 

areas can not at present be regarded as commercial sources of helium. The main featwo and one-half to three years, provided some 

additional drilling were done and that the production were held down to 20 or 25 per cent of 

the open flow. Conditions have changed since 

the estimate was made, however, for during the. 

winter of 1918-19 some of these fields produced 

considerably more than 20 to 25 per cent of 

their open-flow capacity, and the amount of 

gas remaining in the sands has been correspondingly decreased. 

I_£ g~s con,taining as little as 0.5- per cent of 

hehum can be profitably treated, the Pearson 

field and the neighboring territory will ~robably 
92 HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 

furnish a large supply, and it also appears 

probable that the western Osage country will 

yield gas carrying at least as much helium as 

·that of the Pearson field. If gas containing as 

little as 0.37 per cent of heliun1 can be treated, 

the Vinton County field is capable of furnishing 

at least a quarter of a million cubic feet of he-

·lium daily for severttl years. Taking into account every field producing at least 3 million 

cubic feet a day of raw gas containing at least 

0.35 per cent of helium, the writer estimated in 

.September, 1918, that a weekly production of 

about, 6 million cubic feet of helium (not counting losses in ·extra~tion) could be maintained 

for two and one-half to three years. 

As the extraction of helium 'in large quantities involves t.he installation of powerful compressors and other expensive n1achinery, it is 

obviously desirable to start operations in a 

field which is still young and in which the roc~ 

pressure is still high. Furthermore, it is desirable that the operations shall be aimed primarily at recovering the helium content of the 

gas and that the production be maintained, 

summer and winter, at a constant figur(3 equal 

to the capacity of the extraction plant, thus prolonging the life of the field and extending the 

period. of usefulness of the plant. Most of the 

helium-beadng fields of· Kansas are now old 

·and their product is in great demand as fuel, 

but the Pearson field, in Oklahoma, and the 

Vinton County field, in Ohio, are still comparatively young, and much of their product could 

be used as a source of helium without disturbing 

the local market. If new fields of helium-rich 

gas are discovered in the western Osage country 

or in. northern Texas the operating conditions 

will of course be even more favorable. 

POSSmLE SOURCES OF HELIUM IN OTHER 

COUNTRIES. 

. As the conditions governing the occurrence 

of helium are very imperfectly known, it is 

~impossible to forecast the importance of the 

supplies that may be dev~loped in other countries. It may be of interest, however, to review the o<;currences of helium· abroad, as 

described in the literature, and to consider also 

the application to foreign fields of the principles 

that seem to govern the occurrence of helium in 

the United States. 

So far as can be judged from the literature, 

no commercial supplies of helium-bearing natural gas have yet been discovered outside of 

North .America. According to the writer's 

information, the richest gas in Cariada is that of 

the Bow Island field, Alberta, which contains 

0.30 per cent of helium and of which at the 

present time an open flow of about 15 million 

cubic feet is available. It is reported that 

attempts to extract· the helium from the Bow 

Island gas have not been successful, though 

with an· improvement in the extraction pro- _ 

cesses this gas may yet become a commercial 

source. Furthermore, considerable quantities 

of oil and gas are produced in other parts of 

Canada, where the conditions of occurrence are 

similar to those in the United States, and it is 

not unlikely t.hat gas richer in helium than that 

of the Bow Island field will be discovered. 

_ As described on pages 33-34 all but one of 

the European .natural gases that have been 

tested contain negligible proportions of helium. 

The only gas rich enough to be consid.ered a 

possible commercial source is the gas obtained 

from the deep test hole. at Pechelbronn, Alsace, 

which contains 0.38 per cent of helium, but 

apparently only a very small volume of this 

gas is available. 

It would of course be unwise to infer, from 

the results of half a dozen tests, that no heliumbearing natural gas occurs ·outside of North 

America, though several lines of reasoning 

lead to the conclusion that such gas is less 

likely to be found in the other continents. 

In the fi!st place, the United States, which has 

contributed 60 per cent of the world's total 

output of oil, has furnished a very much 

larger proportion of the world's output of gas. 

This is doubtless due partly to the fact that 

most foreign petroleum regions are inaccessible 

and remote from centers of industrial activity, 

so that there is little market for the gas that 

may be found; but it seems safe to conclude, 

nevertheless, that natural gas is far more 

abundant in the United States than in any 

other country yet explored for petroleum. The 

only gas field in Europe comparable in size to 

the great North American fields is in Transylvania, and the several samples of gas from that 

field that have been tested contain practically 

no helium. As natural gas is more plentiful 

in the United States than elsewhere, it might 

be argued, simply on the theory of chances, 

that the helium-bearing variety is also more 

plentiful.. 

• 

•• 
• 

'CHIEF SOURCES OF HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 93 

The conditions under which helium-bearing 

natural gas occm·s in the United States also 

suggest that such gas is less likely to be found 

in other countries, though it must of course 

be recognized that these conditions may not 

prove to be of universal. application. Except 

in the United States, Canada, and China, the 

world's output of oil and gas is at present 

derived wholly from Cretaceous and Tertiary 

strata, and in the United States the Cretaceous and Tertiru·y gases are characteristically 

poor in helium. Only about a dozen samp~es 

out of the seventy-five tested contained 

measurable proportions of helium, and only 

two contained as much as· 0.3 per cent .. The. 

occul'rence of. 0.3 'per cent in two samples 

indicates that there is no fundamental reason 

why .helium should not occur in Cretaceous and 

Tertiary gases, but the lru·ge number of samples 

that contain no helium whatever suggest that 

such occmTences are rare. Finally, all heliumberu·ing natural gases in the United States are 

rich in nitrogen, whereas the many analyses of 

Em·opean gases that have been published showin ·general a low nitrogen content. 40 Only 

two accounts of high-nitrogen gas in Europe 

have come to the writer's attention-the deep 

gas at Pechelbronn, whicli contains 46.55 per 

cent of nitrogen and 0.38 pel: cent of helium 

(seep. 34), and a gas discovered in 1906 at 

Nowo-Usensk, in the Government of Samara, 

Russia. Two analyses of this gas showed 

20.70 and 40.86 per cent of nitrogen, but the 

proportion of helium was undetermined. 50 

Charitschkoff, 51 however, stated in 1907 that 

many of the Russian gases are rich in nitrogen and should be tested for helium, but that 

up to that time no search for helium had been 

made. 

It is not to be inferred from the foregoing 

remru·ks that heliun1 has not been found in 

•o lj:nglcr has compiled a great many analyses of gas from vl:).l'ious 

European countries. A number of thcso analyses show a high nitrogcu 

content but also a high proportion of oxygen, indicating that the sample 

was contaminated by air. Engler, C., Das Erdol, Band 1, pp. 738-744, 

Leipzig, l!H3. · · 

~o 'eho analyses also show 4.22 and 10.65 per cent of hydrogen and may 

therefore bo regarded with somo suspicion. Doss, B. Ubor das Naturgnsbohrloch auf dcm Guto dor Gcbri.ldor Mclnikow im Kreise NowoUso.usk, Gouvornomout Samara.[abstract]: Goo!. Centralblatt, vol. 13, 

p. 8, 1900; Eiuo nouo l:.agerstiitto von Naturgas in Russland [abstract!: 

Idem, p. 455; Ubor das dritto Gasbohrloch auf dom Gute der Gebriidor 

Molnikow im Oouvoruomont Samara nobst orgiLnzepdon Untorsuehnngcu ilbor das zwcito Bohrloch cbondaselbst: Idem, vol. 18, p. 55, Hll2. 

61 Charltschkofl', K., Ncuo Mitteilungen tiber die ~aphtachcmie: 

Potroloum Zeitschr., vol. 2, p. 712, 1907 . 

quantity outside of North Ame~ica, for as 

described on pages 47~51, the gases of a number 

of European mineral springs and fumaroles 

and the fire damp of some European mines 

carry helium. The gases of three mineral 

springs at Santenay, France, carry more than 

8 per cent of helium, or more than four times as 

much as the richest natural gas in the United 

States. The supply of these gases available, 

however, is small, and the total volume of 

helium emitted by these three springs in the 

course of a year amounts to less than 1,000 

cubic feet, or only a fraction as much as the 

average well in the Petrolia field yields daily. 

(See p. 87 .) A spring at Neris, France, which 

emits gas containirig 0.97 P.er cent of helium 

and produces about 1,200 cubic feet of helium 

yeru·ly, appears to be the most productive 

single source of. gas rich enough to be treated 

on a commercial scale. The mine gases, on 

the other hand, carry large·volumes of helium, 

but the percentage is so small that the helium 

could not be profitably extracted.· The coal 

mine at Anzin, Fr~ce, for example, emits about 

154,000 cubic feet of. helium yearly, but the 

proportion of helium in the gas is only 0.044 per 

cent. (See p. 47.) The mineral springs and 

mine gases ·of Europe have been thoro1:1ghly 

investigated by Moureu and 'his associates, and 

it is improbable that any commercial sources 

of helium will be discovered among therrt. · 

The Italian fumarole and volcanic gases see:in 

more likely to yield helium in commercial proportions and volume, though the richest gas 

recorded in the literature contains only 0.0155 

per ·cent of heliun1. (See p. 51.) The helium 

content of many other similar gases was investigated during the war by the Italian authorities, and uri.successful attempts were made 

to extract the helium on commercial scale for 

use in balloons. It has been reported, however, 

that gas containing 4 per cent of helium has 

recently been discovered in the boric-acid 

soffiones of Tuscany. As shown by the analyses on page 51, such gas generally consists· 

chiefly of carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulphide, and as these constituents can easily be 

removed by chen1ical methods the extraction 

of only 1 per cent of helium from such a gas 

would not be difficult. 
• 
•· 

SAMPLES OF NATURAL GAS TESTED FOR 

HELIUM. 

The following list is designed as a complete 

catalogue of all samples of natural ga£ whose 

helium content. had been determined prior to 

December 10, 1918. Samples collected in -the 

field but lost through leaky containers or otherwise before tests were made are not included. 

The samples are grouped by States, counties, 

and fields, each in alphabetic order. 

Most of the samples were collected by the 

writer and by members of the Geological Survey assisting him during the summer of 1918. 

Most of the smnples from Wyoming, however, 

were collected during September, 1918, by C. A. 

Fisher, a former member of the Survey, and 

most of those from the Northwestern States 

and from California were collected by A. W. 

A1ubrose and E. W. Wagy, of the Bureau of 

l\1ines, dm·ing August and September. Fairly 

c01nplete data as to the name, location, depth, 

pressure, flow, and producing horizon of all 

wells sampled by Sm·vey mem hers and by 

Fisher,' Ambrose, and W agy are given in the 

tables. In order to make the catalogue as 

conlplete as possible the tests of a nurrtber of 

san1ples collected by C. F. Ward, of the Bureau 

of l\1ines, early in 1918, and by Cady and l\1cFarland in 1906-7, are also included, despite the 

fact that all particulars regarding the source 

of many of these samples are not available. 

The name of the collector of each sample is 

indicated by the letter prefixed to the sample 

number, as follows: 

C 1-54, Cady and McFarland, 1906-7 (mostly 

Kansas). 

W, C. F. Ward, 1917-18 (Oklahoma, Texas, 

Louisiana, California, etc.). 

1-100, G. S. Rogers, June-September, 1918 

(Kansas, Oklahoma, Tex~s). 

Ry 1-101, P; V. Roundy, August-October, 

1918 (Kansas). 

D 1-13, 0. E. Dobbin, August-September, 

1918 (Oklahoma). 

F 1-14, C. A. Fisher, September, 1918 

(Wyoming). 

A 1-70, A. ·W. Ambrose, August-September, 

1918 (Northwestern States and California). 

Ri 1-23, G. B. Richardson·, August-September, 1918 (Ohio). 

Samples C 1-54 were analyzed by Cady and 

McFarland at the University of Kansas; many 

of those marked W were tested by I-I. P. Cady 

or his assistants; and the . remainder were 

tested by C. W. Seibel, of the Bureau of Mines, 

at· the labora.tory of t.he Fort Worth gas experiment plant. 

In tlre tables. the figures given for rock pressure and open flow are those recorded on the 

date the sample was collected unless otherwise ·specified. · 

95 
96 HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 

California. 

D_ata on samples of natural gas 

Well. 

Sample No. County. Field. 

Name. 

A 55......... Fresno............... Coalinga~ ............... ~..... Shell Oil Co. well 24 ....................... . A 54 ........ ~ ..... do .................... do ........... ·_ . . . . . . . . . . . Shell Oil Co. well 14 .....•.................. A 53 .............. do .................... do ....................... Shell Oil Co. well34 ....................... . A 52 .............. do .................... do ....................... Shell Oil Co. well26 ....................... . A 51. ............. do .................... do: ...................... Shell Oil Co. well29 ....................... . A 50 ............. ·.do ............ .' ....... do. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Associated Oil Co. well. ................... . A 40 ......... Kern ................ Belridge ...................... Pipe-line sample ........................... . A4L ............ do .................... do ................ · ........ Belridge·ou Co. well6 ................... .. A 24 .............. do ............... Elk Hills ..................... Associated Oil Co. well 1. .................. . A 42 .............. do ... · ............ Lost Hills .................... Pipe-line sample ........................... . A 43 .............. do .................... do. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . General Petroleum Co. well106 ............. . A 44 .............. do .................... do ....................... General Petroleum Co. wellll8 ............. . A 31. ............. do ............... McKittrick ................... Pipe-line sample~ .......................... . W ................ do ............ ~ .. Midway ...................... Midway Gas Co. well2 ... ~ ................ . W ................ do .................... do ....................... Midway Gas Co. well27 ................... . A 25 .............. do ......... ~ .......... do ....................... Pipe-line sample ........................... . A 26 .............. do: ................... do .......... , ............ Standard Oil Co. well5 ..................... . A 27 .............. do .................... do ....................... Standard Oil Co. well·1 ....•................. A 28 .............. do .................... do ....................... Honolulu Oil Co. well5 ................... .. . A 29 .............. do .................... do ....................... Honolulu Oil Co. welll. ................... . A 30 .............. do .................... do ....................... Pipe-line sample ........................... . A 32 .............. do .................... do ..... ~ ................. Doheny-Paci:fic Oil Co. well ............... . A 33 .............. do .................... do. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . General Petroleum Co. well 19 .............. . A 34 .............. do ................... ~do .... ·. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eagle Creek Oil Co. well 13 ................. . A 35 .............. do .................... do .................. ·_ ..... Pipe-line sample ........................... . A 36 .............. do ............... Sunset .................. ; .... Pipe-line sample, M. J. M. & M. lease ....... . A 37 ............... do .................... do.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . International Oil Co. well 4 ................ . A 38 .............. do .................... do ......... ·.. .. .. .. .. .. .. Interstate Oil Co. well 2 ............ : .. ... .. A 39 .............. do .................. : .do ....................... 'Pipe-line sample, Ethel D. lease .......... .. A 14 ......... Los Angeles ......... Brea Canyon ................. Brea Canyon Oil Co. well29 ............... .. A 15 .............. do .................... do ........... ~ .. .. .. .. .. . Brea Canyon Oil Co. well 25 ................ . A 16 ............ .'.do ............... Coyote Hills ................. Standard Oil Co. well17 ................... .. A 17 ............... do .................... do ....................... Standard Oil Co. well40 .................... . A 18 .............. do .................... do .......... · ............. Pipe-line sample ................ · ........... . C 47 .............. do ............... Los Angeles ..... ~ ........... Oil welL .................................. . A 20 .............. do............... Montebello ........ :.. .. .. .. . Pipe-line sample ........................... . A 21 .............. do .................... do ....................... Union Oil Co. well4 ....................... . A 11 .............. do ............... Olinda .... : ................. West Coast Oil Co. well24 ................. . A 12 .............. do .................... do ....................... West Coast Oil Co. well38 ................. . 

i ~t:::::::: :::: :i~:::::::::: :~:::: ~ ~~~~!~~~:::::::::::::::::::: :~~~it~~~~~~~-:-:~:-:::::::::::::::::::::::: W .... : .. · .. , ...... do: ........... · ........ do ............................ do ......... .-.......................... . W ................ do .................... do ............................ do .................................... . A 19 .............. do ...... :. . . . . . . . Whittier ........................... do ..................................... . W .......... San.Joaquin .......... Stockton.~ ................... Well3 .................................... . A 66......... Santa Barbara........ Casmalia..................... Escolle well L ............. · ................ . 

~ ~~:::::::::: :·:: :~~:::::: ::::::::: -C~t-~~~y~~~ :::::::::::::::::: ~i;::li~~ :ae~~~--------~:.:: :::::::::::::::::::: A 70 .............. do ......... ; ...... · .... do. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Blochman 'veil 8 ........................... . A 68 .............. do ............... Lompoc ...................... Purisima well15 .......................... . A62 .............. do ............... SantaMaria ................. Newlovewell15 .......................... . A 63 .............. do .................... do ....................... Kaiser well1 .............................. . A 64 .............. do .................... do ....................... Newlove well12 .......................... . A 65 .............. do .................... do.. . .. . . .. . .. . . . .. .. .. .. Western Union well 12 .................. · .. .. A 56 ......... Ventura ............. Fillmore ..................... Montebellowell77 ........................ . A 57 .............. do ......... ~ .......... do .. · ..................... Montebello well23 .................. ~ ..... ·. A 58 .............. do .................... do. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oak Ridge well 2 ........................... . A 59 .............. do.. .. .. .. .. .. .. . Ventura. . .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. . Gosnell well 1 ........................... . A 60 ............... do ... ~ ................ do ............. : ......... Banard well1 .............................. . A 61 ......... 1 

••••• do .................... do ....................... Pipe-line sample ........................... . 

Colorado. 

w .... ·······l·········· .......... ··I De Beque ................... ·I········ ................................... ·I •• a Average depth of wells, 3,000 feet. b Middle oil sand. c Upper oil sand. a Combined flow of all wells on lease. 
• 

SAMPLES OF .N ATVRAL GAS Tl,'J~'l:ED FOR: HELIUM. 97 

tested for helium. California. 

Well-Continued. Proclticing sand. 

Locality. Rock presl-----:--------l suro (potmds Opou flow 

(M cubic 

feet). 

Date sampled .. Helium (per cent). 

Depth (feet). pefn~~)~ro 'Age. 

Sootlon. ~L'ownship. Ran go. 

34 19 S. 15 E ...................... Tertiary~--- ... .' .................. Oct.-, 1918 .. 2 20 S. 15 E.· .......................... do ....................... : ....... do ...... =. 2 20 S. 15 E. . ......................... do ............................... do ....... . 34 19 S. 15 E. . ...... : . ................... do .................................. do .......... . 34 19 S. 15 E. . ......................... do ................................ do.: ..... . 36 20 S. 15 E. . ......................... do ............ _._ ................. do ....... . 33 28 S. 21 E. : .. .'.::. :·.·: · ·- 140" ·:·.-.-:-·.do::-:-: .. :·.~---.·.·. ·(at ..... ... · :·.-: .. do ...... .. 35 27 S. 20 E. 70 300 ..... do........... b 4, 200 ..... do ....... . 26 30 S. 23 K 450 ............... do ............................... do ...... .. 4 27 S. 21 E. 6 Small. .. ... do ........ : .................... ".do ...... .. 19 26 S. 21 E. 2 100 ..... do .. ~......... 750 ..... do ...... .. 19 26 S. 21 E. .. ......... Small. ..... do............ (c) ............ · .. . 19,20 30 S.- 22 E. 10 800 ..... do........... (c) . Oct.-, 1918 .. 20 31 S. 23 E ........................... do .......................... 1918 ... ~ ..... : 27 31 S. 23 E. .. ........................ do .......................... 1918 ......... . 36 31 S. 23 E. · 235 d7, 000 ... · .. do ...... : ................... Oct.-, 1918 .. 26 31 S. 23 E. . .. . .. .. .. . 550 ..... do ........... · (e) ..... do ...... .. 22 31 S. 23 E. 100 500 ..... do........... (e) ..... do ....... . 6 32 S. 24 E. 50 3, 000 ..... do .............. · .................. do ...... .. 8 32 S. 24 E. 5 1, OOO+ ..... do ................ ~ ... : .......... do ...... .. 30 32 S. 24 E. 150 d 1, 500 ..... do ............................... do ...... .. 2 31 S. 22 E. _80 500 ..... do .............. : ................ do ....... . 14 31 S. 22 E. 2 100 ..... do ........... · · (c) ..... do ...... .. 31 31 S. 23 E. . ......................... do ............ · .. · ................. do ....... . 30 32 S. 24 E. 125 430 ..... do ............ .' ............. ." .... do ...... :. 36 12 N. 24 W. 10 d250 ..... do ............. · .................. do ...... .. 4 12 N. 23 W. 75 350 : .. .. do........... (/) .. _. __ .. do ....... . •! 12 N. 23 W. 10 100 ..... do .............. · ........... :· . .' ... do ...... .. 36 1~ N. 24 W. 2 d500 ..... do ........... · (c) ....... do ...... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 100 ..... do........... 4, 100 ..... do ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 25 ..... do........... 2, 100 ..... do ....... . .. . . .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. . . .. . 40 1, 200 ..... do ..... ·...... 3, 765 · ..... do.· ..... .. 

. E·t;l~~y- ~~I~pr~~~~l:. ·.· .· ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ........ ~~ .... ~~- ~~~ .. :::: :~~ ~: :. : ~ ~::::: ~ . .' ...... ~~- ~~:. :: :_::: ~~:::::::: 

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : · · · 2: ooo · · · 'r~~ti~~;,: : : : : : ~ : : : · · · · · · < i) · · · · · .· ·-O"~t-. ·..:..:. · i9is: -~ 

............................ 2 200 ..... do ......... ~. c2,460 ..... do ....... . 

···························· 2 } 1, 500 { .... do .. _.:....... 2,8oo: ..... do ...... .. . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 .... do. . . . . . . . . . . c 3, 100 ..... do ....... . Hualda ................. · ... ·............ 1, 600 ..... do........... (c) · .. · ... do ........ .. Salt Lake compressor.................. 2, 000 ..... do ... :.:..... . (c) ._.' ... do ........ ·: Arcttuus com pressor.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 400 ..... do .. , ~ .. . .. .. ( /) ..... do.. .. .. .. . 

~~fs~1°I~:S~r~~_-_-_·_·_-~~-~~~:.: :~::~:::~:: :::::::::: ~~:~:~~: :~~:~~:-~:: :·:::::~:~::~::: i~it:::::::~~:~ Standard lease............. . .. .. .. . .... 200 ..... do .......................... Oct.-, 1918 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . do .......................... 1918 ......... . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . ......... dq........... 3, 000 Oct.-, 1918 .. : · . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336 ..... do........... c 632 ..... do ....... . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Small. ..... do.· .. · ............................ do ..... .' .. · . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Small. . .... do .. ,,....... 3, 100 ..... do ........ · . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sllnall. . .... do........... 2, 750 ..... do ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 540 ..... do........... 2, 500 ..... do ....... . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 ..... do........... 2, 500 ..... do ....... . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . · ............................. do........... 3, 100 ..... do ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Small. ..... do.,......... 1, 600 ...... do ........ ·: · . . .. .. . . .. . .. . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. 3 1, 500 ..... do........... !2, 800 ..... do ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 500 ..... do ...... ~ . ~ . . . c 600 ...... d~ ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 1, 000 ..... do .. :........ 3, 000 ..... do ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 ..... do........... 3, 200 ..... do ....... . .... .. .. .... .. .. . .. .. .. .. .... 20 200 ..... do............ 2, 200 ..... do ...... .. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • g 2 ............... do ... ,....... h 550 ..... do ....... . 

Colorado. 

None. 

None. 

None. 

None. 

None. 

0.11 

None. 

None. 

Trace. 

None.· 

None. 

None. 

None. 

Trace. 

Trace. 

None. 

None. 

None. 

None. 

None. 

None. 

None. 

None. 

None. 

None. 

None. 

None. 

None. 

None. 

None. 

None. 

None. 

None . None. 

None. 

None. 

None. 

None. 

None . None. 

None. 

None. 

Trace. 

Trace. 

None. 

Trace . None. 

None. 

None. 

None. 

None. 

0.13 

None. 

None . None. 

0.06 

. 31 

None. 

None. 

None. 

None. 

I Gas fro~ oil.shale ......... ·I· ......... -1-- ....... -I· ....... --.· ...... -1--- .......... --1--, ........... -I None: 

e "Dry" gas sand. 

10135 °-21-.-7 

I Lower oil sand. . g Line pressure ... h A vemge depth of wells. 
98 HELIUM-BEARING NA'l'URAL GAS. 

Data on samples of natural gas 

Indiana. 

Well. 

Sample No. County. Fielq. 

Name. 

C 38......... Grant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~{arion ..................................................... ·- ............ . 

Kansas. 

C 26 ......... Allen ............... Humboldt. __ ................. Pipe-line sample ........................... . C 7 ............... do............... lola ...... ___ ......... _ ............ do .. _ ................................. . C 20 .... _·. . . . . . _ .. do. _· ....... ·. . . . . . ~foran. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................................... . C 33 ......... Anderson ............ Garnett. .................... Pipe-line sample ........................... . W........... Butler............... Eldorado ... _................. Paulson well 47 _ ................ __ ........ . W ................. do .................... do. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chesney well 3 .......... : . ................ . W ................ do ..................... do....................... Chesney (5 wells) .. · .................. : .... . 15 ............... _do .................... do. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 'Vilson well 92 ............................ . 16 ................ do .... : ............... do .. _.................... Stokes well 50 ............................. . 17 ................ do ..................... do.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lister well 24 ............... ~ .............. . 18 ............ _._.do .................... do ........... _____ ... : ... Robinson well 37 .......................... . 18 A ..... · ......... do ................. , .. do .. _ ................. ~ .. }.l[cClure \veil 4 .. _ .......................... . Ry 1 ............. do .. _ ............ _._ .. do ........ __ ............. Stokes well46 ...................... _.: .... . Ry 2 ............. do .................... do .... __ .. -·- ...... _ ...... Stokes well 53 ............... , ............. . Ry 3 ............. do ......••............ do ....................... -Pierpont well 36 .......................... . 

~~ t::::::: ::::: ~~::::::::::::::: ::::: ~6::::::::::::::::::::::: 6te:tn~~t ::N :t_-_ -_ ~:::::::::::::::::::::::: Ry 9 ............. do .................... do .. _ ................ _ ... Wilson well98 ............................ . 

~~- g::: : ::: : : : : : ~~::: : : ::: :: :: : : : ::::: ~~::: : : : : : : ::: ::: :·: ~: :: : : ~~~~~:~~ ::n ~~: : : : : : : : : : : : :: : : : :: : : : ::: ::; Ry 13 ....... _: ... do ..................... do .. : ............ _ ....... Ho\ve \vell25 ............................. . Ry 16 ....... _ .... do ...•.............. :.do ....................... Dickman well10 ................ _ ......... . Ry 18 ............ do .................... do ....................... Marsh well 25 ............................. . Ry 19 ... -.- .. _ .... do .................... do ..... _ ..... _._ ........ _ ~fa:r:sh well 28 ............................. . Ry 20 ............ do .................... do ....................... ~fanning well4 ........................... . Ry 21 ............ do .................... do ....................... Enyart \vell11 ............................ . Ry 22 ........... :do ..................... do ........................ Anderson v.rell5 ........ · ................... . Ry 23 ............ do .................... do... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anderson well 9 ........................... . Ry 24 ... ---- ... J.do ....... : ............ do ........................ __ ... do .... ------ .. ____ _. ___ --------------·--

~~ ~~:::::::I:::::~~::::::::::::::: ::::: ~~:::::::::::::: _: __ ::::: ~:i::~ ::U ~: : ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 

Ry 27 ............ do .................... do....................... Empire well 3 .... -......................... . Ry 28 ....... __ ... do .................... do ...................... _ Nichelger well L .......................... . 

Ry 29 ............ do .................... do ....................... Gussman well1 ........................... . Ry 30 ...... : ..... do ..•................. do .... _ .................. Koogler 'vell1 ............................. . 

~~ ~~::::::: :::: :~~::::::: :~:::: :·: :::: :~~::: ·:::::::::::::::::::: ¥o~~iBeo;:~~\:~il"ii~ _-_-_-_-_ ~::::::::::::::::::: 

~ ~~-- _- _- _-::::: ::::: ~~::::::::::::::: -~-~~d~t~-- ~:: ~ ~ -_ -_-_- _- ~:: ~ -_ -_-_-_- _- ~: -~~~~~~i~~ ~~~~~~----- _- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~:::::::::::::: 20 ................ do ........... : ........ do....................... Moyle well 7 ............................... . 21 ............ ·- ... do .................... do ................ _ . _ . . . . Love well 1 ................................ . 19 ............... _do .................... do ................ __ ..... Wallace \vell1 ............................ . 

~j-38::::::::::: :~~::::: ::::::::::: ::::~~:::::::::: ::::::::::::: ~~Pv~~~:rs~~t~-~~-~v_e!~~-_-_-_-::::::::::::: ::: 

Ry 39 ............ do .................... do ....................... E. Varner \Vell15 .......................... . Ry 40 ............ do .................... do ............................ do .................................... . Ry 41 ............ do .................... do ....................... Haskins well 6 ................... -.- ........ . Ry 42 ............ do ............ · ........ do ....................... Haskins \vell1 ......... · .................... . Ry 43 ............ do ............ ~ ....... do ....................... !Jove well19 ............................... . 

~~ !g:::: ::::::: :~~:::::: ::::::::: :::: :~~::: :::::::::::::::::::: ~~ke;~efl:5·_-_-_:: ::::::::::::::::::::::::: Ry 46 ............ do .................... do....................... }.!Ioyle well 2, .............................. . Ry 48 .. _ ........ _do .................... do .. _ .............. _..... ~1:iller well 3 .............................. . 

~~ [:: i i ~:: i . .ff-: · i · ·:. · ·: ·: i i ~ i.: ~~f. i ·: ~: i: · i · i::::::::: ~ ~ !Ej%i~~;r;,}.: ... ~ /~\:: /:/ · ·: · i i 

i~ ~~::::::::::: :i~: :::::::::::::::::: :i~::::::::::::::::::::::: E~~:~H-i::·:·:::::::::: :::::::::::::::: J a Line pressure. b Average depth of wells. c May, 1918. d Shawnee formation. 

• 
SAMPLES OF N A.TURAL GAS TESTED FOR HELIUM. 99 

· testedjor helium-Continued. 

Indiana. 

Well-Continued. Producing sand. 

J"ocality. Rock prel'l- Date sampled. Relium(per 

O~en flow cent). sure (pounds ( 1 cubic Age. Depth (feet). 

Section. Township. Range. per;~)~re feet). 

......... .......... .......... .............. . ......... Ordovician (Tren- .. ...................... 

ton ?). 

Aug. 25, 1906 0.167 

Kansas. 

........ ........... .............. . ........... . ........... P~nnsyl vanian .... .. ................... July 25, 1906 0.14 ........ .......... . ........... ................ ........... ..... do ........... .. ................... June 10, 1906 .18 ........ ......... ............. ............... ............. ..... do ........... . .................. July 13, 1906 . 21 .......... ········· ............. 200 ........... . .... do ........... b 600 Aug. 1, 1906 . 37 

2 2G S. 4 E. a 100 c 450 . .... do. d .............. 895- 920 1918 .......... 1. 59 

21 25 S. 5E. c 84 c 700 ..... do. e ....••••. 1,248 1918 .......... .79 

21 25 S. 5 E. c Av., 72 ........... . .... do. e .•..••..• 1,218-1,236 1918 .......... 1. 04 

8 25 s. 5 E. c 348 c 3, 075 . .... do. e •.••...•. 1,270-1,292 July 15, 1918 . 587 

33 25 s. 5 E. c 43 c 250 .. ... do. d .............. 854- 860 ..... do ........ 1. 008 

32 25 s. 5 E. c 310 c 600 . .... do. e ••••••••. 1,176-1,185 . .... do ........ 1.162 

31 25 s. 5 E. c 82 c 325 ..... do. d ............... 900- 905 ..... do ........ 1.568 

14 26 s. 4E. ........... ........... ..... do. d . ............. About 900 . .... do ........ 1. 41 

33 25 s. 5 E. c 38 c 275 ..... do. e ••.••.... 1,093-1, no Aug. 19, 1918 1. 36 

33 25 s. 5 E. c 37 c 200 . .... do . .' ......... 865- 875 ..... do ........ .72 

33 25 s. 5 E. c 42' c 225 . .... do./ ......... 880- 892 . .... do ........ 1.42 

33 25 s. 5 E. c 43 c ll5 . .... do./ ......... 842-. 850 ..... do ........ 1. 36 

21 25 s. 5 E. l ..... c.~~~-- c 375 . .... do. e ....•.•.. 1, 255-1,261 Aug. 20, 1918 1.18 

8 25 s. 5 E. c 650 ..... do. e ••....... 1,295-1,302 ..... do ........ 1. 70 

31 25 s. 5 E. c 90 c 350 . .... do.! ......... 894- 901 . .... do ........ 1.19 

31 25 s. 5 E. . c 146 c 504 . ... :do. e •••...... 1,273-1,315 ..... do ........ .75 

5 26 s. 5 E. c 170 c 375 . .... do. e ••..••..• 1,250 . .... do ........ .71. 

36 25 s. 4 E. c 76 c 350 . .... do./ ......... 897- 909 Aug. 27,1918 1. 22 

6 26 S. 5 E. c 104 c 275 . .... do. e .•....•.. 1,270-1,280 ..... do ........ .48 

6 26 s. 5 E. c 122 c 105 . .... do. e .•...•.•. 1,136-1,272 ..... do ........ . 93 

5 26 s. 5 E. c 252 c 130 ..... do. e ......... 1,129-1,210 . .... do ........ 1. 39 

12 26 S. 4E. c 252 c 275 . .... do. e ••....••. 1, 170-1, 190 ..... do ........ 1.26 

8 26 s. 5 E. c 48 c 35 ..... do./ ......... 901- 912 . .... do ........ 1. 21 

7 26 S. 5 E. c 42 c 265 ..... do.! ......... 910- 918 ..... do ........ 1.10 

8 26 S. 5 E. c 50 c 425 . .... do. f ......... 900- 905 ..... do ........ 1.13 

8 26 S. 5 E. c 46 c 280 ..... do. f ......... 904- 914 ..... do ........ 1.16 

8 26 S. 5K c 48 c 375 . .... do./ ......... 892- 898 ..... do ........ 1. 07 

17 26 s. 5 E. c 66 c 265 . .... do./ ......... 887- 899 ..... do ........ 1.11 

17 26 s. 5 E. c 214 c 200 . .... do./ ......... 875- 887 .. : .. do ........ . 91 

17 26 S. 5E. c 50 c 160 ..... do./ ......... 885- 892 ..... do ........ 1. 24 

17 26 s. 5 E. c 56 c 210 . .... do./ ......... 840 ..... do ........ 1.17· 

17 26 s. 5 E. c 238 c 325 . .... do.! ......... 864-1,082 ..... do ........ 1.19 

8 26 S. 5 E. ............. c 190 ..... do./ ......... 1, ll0-1, 185 ..... do ........ 1. 20 ....... .............. ............. 650 ................ ..... do./ ......... 1,440 Aug. 4,1906 . 25 ....... ............. ........... 75± ............. . .... do." .......... About 500 1918 .......... 1. 94 

35 27 s. 4 E. g 75± . g 400 

:::::~~: :::·::::::: About 550 July 18, 1918 2.13 

20 28 s. 4E. g 350 g 4, 500 1,434-1,442 ..... do ........ .414 

11 . 28 s. 4E. g 120 g 205 ..... do ......... · .. 1,455-1,542 ..... do ........ . 55 

(h) (h) (h) ................ ............... ..... do ........... ...................... ..... do ........ .518 

8 28 s. 4 E. g 124 g 294 ..... do ........... 1,190-1,220 Sept. 2,1918 .16 

17 28 s. 4E. g 108 g 213 ..... do .... · ....... 1,611 ..... do ........ . 31 

17 28 s. 4E. g 250 g 25 ..... do ........... 1,395 ..... do ........ . 38 

17 28 s. 4 E. g 76 g 823 ... · .. do ........... 1,350 ..... do ........ . 21 

17 28 s. 4E. g 163 g 94 ..... do ........... 1,420 ..... do ........ . 38 

• 29 28 s. 4E. g 241 g 1, 700 ..... do ......... ;. 1,419 ..... do ........ . 62 26 27 s. 4E. g 190 g 251 ..... do ........... 1,395 Sept. 3,1918 . 55 

35 27 s. 4E. ............... ............. ..... do ........... 1,520 ..... do ........ . 65 

35 27 s. 4E. .............. ............. ..... do ........... . ................... . .... do ........ . 48 

2 28 s. 4 E. g 66 g ll5 ..... do ........... 1,428-1,500 ..... do ........ . 42 

2 28 s. 4E. 0 163 g ll5 ..... do ........... 1,452 ..... do ........ . 57 

21 27 S. 4 E. g 167 0190 ..... do ....... · .... 1,350-1,442 Sept. 7, 1918 1. 03 

21 27 s. 4E. g 162 g 190 ..... do ........... 1,320 ..... do ........ 1.14 

15 28 s. 4E. g 58 ·g 48 ..... do ............ 1,425-1,485 ..... do ........ .42 

16 28 s. 4E. g 133 g 167 ..... do ........... 1,378-1,418 ..... do ........ .40 

20 28 s. 4E. g 195 g 305 ..... do ........... 1,367-1;427 ..... do ......... .40 

8 28 s. 4 E.:l g 94 0 167 ..... do ........... 1,358-1,452 ..... do ........ .44 

16 28 s. 4 E. u206 g 94 ..... do ........... 1,390-1,473 ..... do ......•. .41 

c Douglas or Lansing formation. f Shawnee formation. g July, 1918. h Chiefly in sees. 2, 3, 10, and 11, T. 28 S., R. 4 E. 
10.0 

Data on samples of natural gas 

Kansas-Continued. 

Well. 

Slmple No. Courty. Field. 

Name. 

Ry 59 ....... Butler ............ -.-. Augusta ........ ; .. ~ ......... Feltham well3 .................. -.......... . Ry 60 ............ do .................... do....................... Hazlett wel1"2 .............................. . C 40 ......... Chase ............... Elmdale ....................................................... --------- .. 

~~ ~~:::::::::: ::~~::::::::::: ::::::: ::~~:::::::::: ::::::::::::: 8.'~;;~:~~~~~ii_-_-_·_~: ~::::::::::: ~·::: :.:·:: 

W ........... Chautauqua .......... Sedan (Rogers pool) .......... Pipe line at compressor station .............. . 25 ................ do .... ~ ........ · ....... do ............................ do .................................... . Ry 95 ............ do .............. ~ ..... ·.do,~.· .......... ~ ............... do .................................... . 26 .. , ........... ~.do ............... Sedan .•.•. " ..•........... : ... Roth well1 ................................. . ·· Ry 81. ........... do............... Sedan (Rogers pool).. . . . . . . . . Holroyd well 5 ............................ . Ry 82 ............ do .. , ................. do, •••• ,,:............... Gray 'veil 2 ........................... : ... . Ry 87 ....... " .... do .................... do,·-..................... Hopkins well 2 ............................. . Ry 88 ............ do .................... do •................. ·.-.- .. Hopkins well3 .............................. · Ry 89 ............ do .................... do ....... , ............... Hopkins well6 ............................. . 

!~it:::::::: J~:: ::::::::::::::: :JL::: ::::::::::::::::: ~i~~rr~:\i·~:_:_:_::::::::::::::::::::::: · 

Ry 94 ............ do .................... do ....... ,............... Butcher well1 ............................ . Ry 96 ............ do .................... do ....... , ................ Butcher well2 ............................ . Ry 97 ............ do .................... do .•.... , •..... · .......... Barr well1 ................................ . Ry 98. . . . . . . . . · ... do .............. ·. . .... do. , . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Call w.e111 ................................. . Ry 100 ......... · .. do .................... do .. , .. -.·................ Butcher well L ................. ~: ........ . 

89 ................ do ............... Sedan ........................ Stevens & Graham well L .................. . 102 ............... do .................... do ...... , .... · ............. Abandoned welL .......................... . 28 ................ do .................... do ...... , ................ Fleming & Wadsworth welL. ................ ·.' 

93 ................ do .................... do....................... White & Toews 'veiL ........................ . 92 ........ : .. ·- .... do ............ ; ....... do ........ ·................ Wall welL .................................. . 91 ................ do .................... do ......•. ·............... Brant well2 ...............•................. Ry 101 ........... do .................... do ......••............... T. Smith well1 ............................ . 

~i:::::::::: ·:·:: :J~::::::::::::::: ~ ~~~~~~~~~: ~:::::::::::::::: ~ir~~=:JiPf~~-:~ ~: ~::: ~::: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~::::::::: 86 ... ~ ............ do............... Hale ......... :............... Ferguson well 2 ............................ . 87 ................ do .................... do ....................... Brand·well1 .............................. . 

~~:::::: :::::::: ::~~:: ::::::::::::: ~~~:~~::.-_·_~::: :::::::::::::: i~~~~:lr~~ _e::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::: 

C 23 .............. do ............... Peru ....•................................................................ C 36 ........ , Coffey........ . . . . . . . . Burlington .... , ........... ~ .. . Pipe-line sample ........................... . 

2 r:: ~ ~: : : : : : ~~~~r -: : : : : : : : : : : : : _ ~-~~~J;:~--~~~~ ~: : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : : : : · 8!!~i~~K ;~\t-:: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 

W ................ do .................... do ..... ,_ ........................................................... . 77 ................ do .................... do ....................... Hale well ................................. . 78 .......... · ...... do ..................... do....................... Bolton welL ................................ . 

;::::::'::::::::: :~~:::::::::::::::- ?.t~~d~--------------~-·.::::·_-_-_-_·_~:::: :: §~~~fs1 ~!~i2·:.-.-.-.-.-.-~·--.-.:: ~: ~::: ~::::: :.:::: 

79 ................ do .................... do ......................... ·nay well1 ............................... · .... . 

~ii~~~~~: ~ ~ ~: ~4k~ ~:.:.:.:.:~:~~~-~~~If:~-:-:-:-~:~::_:_:.:.::~~~~~~~ -~!~["?~~~-;-;-:::::::~:~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ 84 .........•. Elk .................. Longton .... _·,,, .............. Ruddle we114 ............................. . 85 .......... ~ ..... do .................... do ....................... Ruddle well1 ............................. . 

g ~7~~~~:::: ~:::: :~~::::::::::::::: ~~~n1ib~~;,::·:~::::::::.~:::::. ~~:~~~~~ ~~~~~~----·.-:::::::::::::::::::::::: 81. ......... : ..... do ............... Oak Valley ... ;; ............... Simmons well2 ........................... .. 82 ......... : ...... do .................... do ........ ' .............. Gardner well. 5 ............................ . Ry 15 ....... Greenwood ............ Beaumont ..................... G. R. Lewis well L ........................ . 

~i i4:::::: ~:::: :~~::.::::::::::::: . ~-~d~~-.-.-.-.-::::·_":::::: :·:::::: f~E~-~ct~~~di:~i~---_-_-_-_ ~:.:_-_-_-_·_~::::::::: :.::: 

Ry 34 ............ do............... Toronto .............. · .... ·.... West Virginia Oil & Gas Co. well L ... _ .... .. Ry 33 ............ do ............... VirgiL ........ ; ............... Foster Oil Co. well2 ...................... .. C 34 ......... Johnson .............. Spr~ng HilL ... : ............... Pipe-line sample ........................ _ .. . W....... . . . . La bette._ .. _ .................. : . ... . ·:: .......... ·. . . Carroll well 1 ................. · ............. . W. ·.· ........ : . · .... do .. : . · ......................... · :· .·. . . . . . . . . . . . . . King 'veil 1 ................. _ .............. . W .. · ........... : . . do::·. : .................. : . .. :·: ."::. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 'Vilson well 1 ............................ · ... . C 15 ....... :. Leavenworth... . . . . . . Bonner Springs:............ . . . Pipe-line sample: .......... ~ ................ . 

. a July, i91S. b Small. c Kansas "city formation. _ a Approximate. e (;asing-head gas. f Peru sand. 
• 

SAMPLES Ol!"' NATURAL. GAS TESTED FOR HELIUM.· 

testedjor helium-Continued, 

Well-Continued. 

Ro('k presl----.....-----,,.-----l sure (pmmds 

section. Township. Range. per;s~)~re . 

Kansas-Continued. 

Open flow 

(M cubic 

_feet). Age. 

Producing sand. 

Depth (feet). 

Date sampled. 

10 28 S. 4 E. a133 a215 Pennsylvanian... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept. 7, 1918 

11 28 S. 4 E. ani a94 .... :do........... l, 755 ..... do ........ .. . .. .. . . . .. . .. .. . .. ... .. .. 45 1, 000 ..... do........... 150 Oct. 6,1906 

1 20 S. 7 E. 34 (b) ..... do........... 340 Aug. 31, 1918 · 34 19 S. 7 E. 36 ............... do........... 580 ..... do ........ . 

::::::::: ::::::::: :::: :·:::: ::::::::::: :::::::::: :::: :~~::::::: ~::: ::::::::::::::: fJI~ 18: ~~~~ ...... 34· ... 33·s~· ... io·E~- ...... i66 ........ 566- ~~~~:~~:c·_·_·_·_·:.·.~~: ......... ci766 .. ~~r~- i~:i~i~ 24 33 S. 10 E. 40 685 ..... do. c.......... ~754 Sept. 22, 1918 

24 33 S. 10 E. 24 ............... do. c.......... d66l ..... do ....... . 35 33 S. 10 E. 12 ......... · ...... do. c........... d575 ..... do ....... . 35 33 S. 10 E. 27 500 ..... do. c.......... d619 ..... do ....... . 35 33 S. 10 E. 25 ............... do. c.......... d606 ..... do ....... . 35 33 S. 10 E. 30 n6 ..... do. c.......... d883 Sept. 24, 1918 

30 33 S. 10 E. 40 395 ..... do. c.......... d712 : .... do ...... .. 25 33 S. 10 E. 36 184 ..... do. c.......... d700 ..... do ...... .. 25 33 S. 10 E. 40 395 .. · ... do. c.......... d700 ..... do ...... .. 25 33 S. 10 E. 36 479 ..... do. c.......... d700 ..... do ....... . 36 33 S. 10 E. 36 213 ..... do. c.......... d735 Sept. 25, 1918 

36 33 S. 10 E. 45 282 ..... <i.o ....... ·.... d728 ..... do.~ .... .. 36 33 S. 10 E. 43 480 ..... do........... d870 ... :.do ...... .. 14 34 S. 10 E. (t:) 1, 000 ..... do........... /1,400 Sept. 15,1918 

28 33S. nE. .......................... do........... (?) Oct. -,1918 

27 • 33 S. 11 E. 50 500 ..... do........... 375 July 18, 1918 

26 33 S. ll E. 5 10 ..... do........... 400 Sept. 15,1918 

29 33 S. 11 E. 100 500 ..... do........... 700 ..... do ...... .. 16 33 S. 11 E. o300 ............... do........... 900 ..... do ....... . 17 33 s. 11 E. 1 50 ..... do........... 896 Oct. 10, 1918 

21 · 33 S. 11 E. .. ........................ do........... 700± 1918 ........ .. 16 35 S. 11 E. h70' 500 ..... do........... i 800. Sept. 16,1918 

16 35 S. 11 E. 130 500 ..... do........... 600 ..... do ........ 31 32 S. 13 E. 68 1, 000 ..... do........... 300 Sept. 17, 1918 

31 32 S. 13 E. 80 500 ..... do........... 640 ..... do ....... . .. .. .. .. . 34 S. 13 E. h37 14,000 ..... do........... i 800 ..... do ....... . 33 33 S. 12 E. 35 250 ..... do........... k 550 Sept. 18,1918 ..................................................... do .......................... 1906 ......... . ..................................................... do .......................... A.ug. 4, 1906 .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .... 355 5, 000 ..... do........... 750 1906 ......... . 18 33 s. 7 E. . no 6, ooo ..... do........... 310 1905 ........ .. 18 33 S. 7 E. no 4, 000 ..... do........... 310 June 12,1906 

18 33 S. 7 E ........................... do........... 700 1918 ......... . 13 33 S. 6 E. 10 5 ..... do... . . . . . . . . · 350 Aug. 31, 1918 

13 33 S. 6 E. 10 5 ..... do........... 350 ... ".do ........ 17 35 S. 7 E. 420 2, 500 ..... do........... 1, 475 Mar. 18,1918 

17 35 S. 7 E. 495 3, 850 ..... do........... . 1, 475 Mar. 4,1918 

24 34 S. 6 E. 250 1, 500 ..... do. .. .. .. .. .. 1, 145 Aug. 31, 1918 

13 34 S. 6 E. 15 10 ..... do........... 1,150 ..... do ........ • • • • . • • . . . • • • . . . • • • • • . • • . . • • • • • • . . . . • . Z500 ..... do ........................... July 17,1918 

5 13 S. 21 E. h200 ............... do........... i350 1906 ........ .. ..................................................... do........... 1, 200 July 4, 1906 

31 31 S. 12 E. 210 1, 360 ..... do........... 758 Sept. 3,1918 

31 31 S. 12 E. 135 ............... do........... 514 ..... do ....... . .. .. .. • .. .. .. . .. .. • .. .. .. .. h 380 ............... do........... il, 150 June 24, 1906 ..................................................... do .......................... July 25,1906 

27 31 S. 13 E. 550 30,000 ..... do........... l, 340 Sept. 3,1918 

20 31 S. 13 E. g 210 1, 500 ..... do. .. .. .. .. .. 505 ..... do ........ 25 27 S. 8 E. 250± 1, 600 ..... do........... 1,120 Aug. 29,1918 .. . .. . .. . ...... ... ... .. . ... h85 ............... do........... i375 Oct. 25,1906 

3 26 S. 10 E. 10 10 ..... do........... 450 Aug. 22,1918 

16 .26 S. 13 E. . .. .. .. .. .. 1, 000 ..... do........... 1, 415 Aug. 30,1918 

23 24 S. 12 E: 70 2, 000 ..... do........... 500 ..... do ....... . ........................... · m 184 ............... do........... i 580 Aug. 2,1906 ............................................ · ......... do .......................... 19~8 ......... . ..................................................... do ............ , ............... 1918 ......... . 

101 

Helium(per cent). 

0.47 

.46 

.56 

. 35 

.50 

. 89 

1.009 

. 98 

1. 912 

. 59 

. 99 

. 86 

1.14 

1.16 

1. 07 

. 97 . . 93 

1.05 

1.03 

.94 

.98 

.90 

.41 

.72 

1.94 

1.04 

. 84 

. 80 

. 89 

.70 

. 21 

.43 

. 35 

. 36 

. 37 

. 57 

.19 

.49 

.16 

1. 84 

1.64 

. 955 

1. 83 

1. 68 

1.047 

.94 

1.90 

. 50 

. 38 

. 27 

.46. 

. 55 

. 54 

. 51 

. 49 

.001 

.40 

. 86 

..................................................... do .......................... 1918 .......... . 

1. 50 

1. 42 

. 3.6 

. 65 

. 40 

.05 

. 06 

.05 ......... ......... .......... mi90 ............... do ........ :.. i600 July 8,1906. .10 

u Initial pressure. h Line pressure. . i A vcrnge depth or wells 

I Combined flow of about 35 wells. k Salt sand m Average rock pressure of wells. I Production of field. 
102 HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL_ G~S. 

Data on samples of natural gas 

Kansas-Continued. 

Well. 

Sample No. County. Field. 

Name. 

C 22 ......... Montgomery ....... ~ .. Can~y ........................ Caney Gas & Min. Co .................... · ... · C 18 .............. do............... Coffeyville and Liberty....... Pipe-line sample ............................ · 

C 45 ......... Neosho ..... · .......... Several fields ....... -------··· ····.do.··································· ·1 

C 25 .............. do ............... Chanute ............................ do ..................................... . C 12 .............. do ............... Erie .............................. dQ .................................... . 

. ~ f~:~L ~:: ~ f]E/{~\~ ~~ ~ ~ J~~a_-_ .. /:t/~ ~ ~::: ~ :·: ~:::±::±::://:: ·;;;::.;.; ·.: ~;; ~; ~ ~1 Louisiana. 

W .. ·. . . . . . . . . Bossier. ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bossier. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reserve Gas Co. well ........................ . W........ . . . Caddo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cedar Grove............... . . . . Southwestern Gas Co. well .......... : ...... . C 46 ......... Jefferson Davis ........ Jennings ...................... Oil well ................................... . W ........... Ouachita ............. Munroe ...................... Smith welll. .............................. . W ................ do .................... do ....................... Smith well 2 ............................... . W ... ~--- .... Terrebonne ........... Houma ........................ McCormick well2 ........................... . W ................ do ..................•. do ... · .................... H. J. Gidry welL .......................... . 

Missouri. 

C 43......... Jackson .............. · . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Well at 2416 Tracy A venue, Kansas City .... . 

I I I 

. - . I 

C 44 .............. do ............... Sheffield ............... ~ ................................................. . 

Montana. 

A 2.......... Dawson.............. Glendive...................... Sample from four wells ..................... . A L........ . Fallon...... . . . . . . . . . Baker..................... . . . . Sample from three wells ..................... . A 5 .•..... ~.. HilL................ . . Havre................. . . . . . . . . Brewery welL ............................. . 

North Dakota. 

A 3 ......... ·I Ward ............... ·I Minot ..................... -· -I-·········································· ·I 

Ohio. 

R

RI1

: 1

101

. __ .-. __ ·· __ ··_· __ H __o_c_kind' 0

_g_._·_·_·_·_·_·_··.·.:·.:: -~~-todno.·.·.·:·.:·.:::::::::::::.·· .. ·W. A. Williamson welL .................... . Mahlon Pa.xton well ......................... . C 24 ......... Richland ............. Butler ................ .- ...... F. 0. Levering well ............ · ............. . W ........... Vinton ............... Vin.ton ....................... Pipe-line sample ........................... . Ri 0 .............. do .................... do .......... .-................. do ..................................... . Ri 1. ............. do .................... do ....................... Ohio Fuel Supply Co. well1592 _ ........... . Ri 2 ............... do .................... do ................... , ... Ohio Fuel Supply Co. well1737 ............ . Ri 3 .............. do .................... do ....................... Ohio Fuel Supply Co. well1919 ............ . Ri 4 .............. do .................... do ....................... Ohio Fuel Supply Co. well 2109 ............ . Ri 5 .............. do .................... do ....................... Ohio Fuel Supply Co. well1634 ............ . Ri 6 .............. do .................... do ....................... Pipe-line sample ........................... . Ri 7 .............. do .................... do ............................ do .............•....................... Ri 8 .............. do ............. " ...... do ....................... Oil Fuel Supply Co. well 2364 .............. . Ri 9 .............. do .................... do ....................... Oil Fuel Supply Co. well 2140 .............. . Ri 15 ............. do .................... do....................... Oil Fuel Supply Co. well 2281. ............. . Ri 16 ............. do .................... do....................... Ohio Fuel Supply Co. well 1991. ........... . Ri 18 ............. do .................... do ....................... Ohio Fuel Supply Co. well2224 ............ . Ri 19 .............. do .................... do .... ~ .................. Ohio Fuel Supply Co. well1779 ............ . Ri 20 ............. do .................... do ....................... Ohio Fuel Supply· Co. well1788 ............ . Ri 21 ... , ......... do ......... , .......... do................. Ohio Fuel Supply Co. well 634 ............... . Ri 22 ............. do ............... .' .... do ....................... Ohio Fuel Supply Co. we112727. · ........... . Ri 23 ............. dq .............. -~- .... ,do ....................... Ohio Fuel Supply Co. well 2062 ............ . W ....... ·., .. Washington ........... Vincent._ ..................... W. H. Bell well. ........................... . 

a Average rock pressure of wells. b Average depth of wells. c Depth of wells. a Average of wells sampled. 
•• 

SAMPLES OF NATURAL GAS TESTED FOR HELIUM. 

testedfor helium-Continued. 

Well-Continued. 

Locality. Rock prcsl----..,....---..,.----l sure (·pounds 

pef ~~~)~ro Section. Township. Ran go. 

Kansas-Continued. 

Open flow· 

(M cubic 

feet). Age. 

Producing sand. 

Depth (feet). 

. . . . . . . . . 35 S. 13 E. 620 . . . . . . . . . . Pennsylvanian. . . 1, 550 ..... .. . . ..... .. .. ..... .... ....... ................... do ......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ ............... do ......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a 200 . . . . . . . . . . . ...... do . . . . . . . . . . . b 850 

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::·····a-~~~--:·::::::::::::::~~:::::::::::······---~~~~·-· 7 27 S. 16 E. . ......................... do ......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300-480 ............... do ........... c 1, 085-1,250 

Louisiana. 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350 Large. Cretaceous........ 800- 900 ..................................................... do ......................... . 

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ........ ~ . . : : : : : : : : : : 6~;i~~7o~;s·. ·. ~ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : .................. ····' ....... .- ....................... do ......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tertiary ........................ . . ........ ......... ......... .......................... do .............. · ........... . 

Missouri. 

!·········!········· ·········!··········· n 1-P·~.ctci.'~~~ .. .-:: 300 ..................... . .... ..... 40 Shallow. 

Montana. 

........... .......... . ........ d12 e 250 Cretaceous ........ 768-800 ......... ............. . ......... d65 e 1, 50Q ..... do ........... 835-890 ......... ........... . ......... 475 50 ..... do ........... 1,200 

North Dakota. 

I 

Date sampled. 

July 14, 1906 

1906 ......... . Dec. 12, 1906 

July 24, 1906 

July 3,1906 

July 25,1906 

July 28, 1906 

1906 ......... . June 27,1906 

1906 ......... . 

1918 ......... . 1918 ......... . Feb. -,1907 

1918 .. · ....... . 1918 ......... . 1918 ......... . 1918 ......... . 

1906 .......... 1906 .......... 

Aug. 13,1918 

Aug. 12,1918 

Aqg. 16,1918 

I········+·······+········ 35 I Cretaceous ....... ·I 357 I Aug. 15, 19181 

Ohio. 

. . . . . . . . . 11 N. 19 W. f 510 o 230 Silurianh ........................ Aug. -, 1918 . . . . . . . . . 11 N. 19 W. /675 o 3, 120 ..... do.h .............................. do ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 200 ............... do.h ......................... July 19, 1906 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 0 •••••••• 0 •••• ~ •••••••••• 0 0 0 0 0 0 ••••••••••• 1918 ......... . 3 9 N. 18 \V ....................................................... Aug. 12,1918 

3<1 ION.· 18\V .........................................•.................. do ....... . 28.

1 

10N. 18\V. /605 02,400 Silurian.h......... 2,296 .. .' .. do ....... . 23 10N. 18\V. /530 o1,300 ..... do.h ...... ·...• 2,430 ..... do ....... . 6 11 N. 17 \V. f 820 o 2, 059 ..... do.h.......... 2, 560 ..... do ....... . 18 9N. 18\V. /900 04,250 ..... do.h ........ ~. 2,072 ...... do ....... ·. 15 9 N. 18 \V. . ... · ...................... do.h ......................... Aug. 13, 1918 

22 9 N. 18 \V. . ..................... · .... do.h ........•.••.••............... do ....... . 3 8N. 18\V. /135 ol60 Mississippiani.... 849 ..... do ....... . 34 9 N. 18 W. f 860 o 8, 853 · Silurian h......... 2, 346 ..... do ....... . 1 9 N. 18 W. f 875 o 5, 000 ..... do.h.......... 2, 653 Sept. -, 1918 

10 9 N. 18 W. f 790 g 213 ..... do.h.. ........ 2, 498 ..... do ....... . 19 9 N. 18 W. f 550 o 9, 510 ..... do.h.......... 2,155 ..... do ....... . Hi 9 N. 18 W. f 810 o 421 ..... do.h.......... 2, 366 ..... do ....... . 26 9N. 18\V. /840 o519 ..... do.h.......... 2,478 ..... do ....... . 1 8N. 18\V. /240 .......... Mississippiani.... 660 ..... do ....... . 3 8 N. 18 W. f 675 o 421 Silurian h......... 2, 438 ..... do ....... . 33 9 N. 18 W. f 825 o 4, 300 ..... do........... 2, 321 ..... do ....... . ..............................................••••.................••.•. 0. 0...... 1918 ......... . 

I 

I 

103 

Helium (per cent). 

0.08 

.08 

.17 

. 24 

.13 

. 26 

. 27 

. 62 

.10 

. 27 

.028 

.046 

Trace. 

. 053 

. 075 

Trace . 'frace . 

.013 

.041 

. 05 

.005 

. 27 

.17 

.32 

.·30 

.15 

. 491 

.28 

.34 

. 36 

.39 

.38 

. 39 

.38 

. 27 

.39 

.48 

·.44 

.43 

.44 

. 20 

.40 

.40 

.38 

.34 

.17 

e Combined flow or we lis sampled. I Initial pressure. g Initial open flow. 11. Clinton sand. i Probably Berea sand. 
104 HELIUM -BEARING NATURAL GAS. 

Data on samples of natural gas 

Oklahoma. 

. Well. 

Sample No. County. Fiel!}. 

Name. 

' -1 

W ........... Caddo .............. .' Cement ..................... Gregory well1 ......................... -··- 11........... Carter................ Fox.......................... Mattie Morris well 2 ....................•... _ 12 ................ do; ................... do ....................... Lucinda well1 ............................ . 

~::::::: : : : : . ~~~~d~: .-. ·. ·::::::::: : : . ~~~d~~::: : : :: ::::: :: :: : : :::: ~i~~-~:~~~:;i~~--- ·_ ~:::::::::::: ~:::: : : : ::: 

W. . . . . . . . . . . Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bristow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shields well 1 ............................. . C 32 ......... Kay ................. Blackwell ................... Union Gas & Oil Co. well2 ................ .. D 6 ..........•.•. do .................... do ....................... Hennessey well1 .......................... . D 7 .............. do .................... do....................... Ira Shutz well 2 .......................... . D 8 .......... · .... do ................ · .... do .............. ~, ....... Ira Shutz well 5 ........................•.. D 9 .............. do .................... do....................... Hobaugh_ well 2 ............................ . D 10 ............. do .................... do .......... ~ ............ Dilworth well1 ........................... . D 11 ............. do .................... do ....................... Kay & Kiowa Oil Co. welL ................ .. D 12 ............. do ............... Ponca City .................. J.D. Buntt welll. ....................... . D 13 ............. do .................... do ....................... Margaret Primaux well7 .................. . 

B g: : : : : : : : : . ~ :~o-.:::::::::::::: . ~~~3r.::::::: : : : :::::: : : :::: ~~aN:B_G~~:j~euei~ -~: .·. ~:::::: : :::: :: : ::: : : 99........... Osage ............ ~.. Osage City................... Braden & Moore well L .................... . 100 ............... do .................... do ....................... Braden & Moore well 8 ................. ~ ... . 36 ................ do ............... Pawhuska .................... Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co. well 

208. 

W ................ do .......... · ..... Myers .................................................................. . 29 ................ do .................... do ....................... American Pipe Line Co. well18 ............. . 30 ................ do .................... do ....................... American Pipe Line Co. well 7 ............ ~ .. 31. ............... do .................... do ....................... Pipe-line sample (5 wells) ................. .. W ................ do ............... Pearson ...................... American Pipe Line Co. well4 .............. . 

~~~~~:~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~::::::: ~: ~ ~ J~~: ~ ~ ~: ~-~:: ~:: ~ ~: ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~EE fiii llii ~: ~~~ L~~::~:: ~: ~: ~ W ................ do .................... do .................... · ... ······························'············· 

y.l ................ do .. : ................. do ....................... Pipe-line sample, all wells .................. . W ................. do ..................... do ...... · .................. · .... do .................................... . 32 ................ do . .' .................. do ....................... American Pipe Line Co. well 29 ............. . $3 ................ do ................. · ... do ....................... American Pipe Line Co. well 28 ............. . 34 ................ do .................... do ....................... American Pipe Line Co. well 53 ............. . 35 ................ do .................... do ....................... Pipe-line sample, all wells .................. . W...... . . . . . Pawnee..... .. . . . . . . . Morrison. . .. .. .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . Fortuna well L ............................ . W ................ do .................... do ....................... G. I,. n1iller well1 .......................... ' 

W ................ do .................... do ....................... D.·n1iller well ............................ . W ................ do ............. : ...... do ....................... Saunderswell17 ............. ~ ............. . 

~::::::: :::: . ~-a-~~--·.-_-_-::::::::::: . ~~~~~--- ~:::::::::::::::::::: . ~~~d~~~~ -~~~1_- ."::::::::::::::::::::: :·:::::: 

14........... Pontotoc............. Ada ................ ~........ Pipe-line sample ........................... . W ........... Stephens ............. Duncan ..................... Washita Gas & Fuel Co. well ................ . W ................ do ............... Loco ......................... Allen & Gilbert well3 ...................... . W ..... , .......... do .................... do ....................... Allen & Gilbert well 2 ..................... :. W ................ do ........... ~ ........ do....................... Mullen & Robinson well L ................. . C 14......... Washington ...... _..... Bartlesville ............................................................ _ ... . 

South Dakota. 

C 54 ......... 1 ]jughes .............. l Pierre ....... ---- ....... ····-·I········· ... : ... ··························· ·I · a Initial rock ·pressure. b Bruner sand. c Initial open flow. · a Casing-head gas. e Average depth of wells. • 
• 

.... 

SAMPLES OF NATURAL GAS TESTED FOR HELIUM. 

testedjor helium-Continued. 

\Voll-Cont:inuod. 

Locality. Rock prcsl----:----~---l sure (pounds 

Section. Township. Range. pefns~)~ro 

31 G N. 9\V. ............... 28 2 s. 3 w. 540 

29 2 s. 3 w. 280 

23 1 s. lOW. a 900 ............ 1 s. 10 \V. ................ HO 15 N. 9E. 310 ........... ......... . ............ 185 

30 29 N. 1 E. 125 

31 29 N. 1K 550 

31 29 N. 1 E. 280 

30 29 N. 1 E. 500 

5 28 N. 1K 150 

13 28 N. 1 w. 170 

18 25 N. 2E. 14 

4 25N. 2E. 21. 

21 23 N. 2\V. 85 

29 24 N. 1 w. 60 

12 21 N. 8 E: (d) 

12 21 N. 8K (d) 

36 26 N. 9E. .... ........... 

Open flow 

(M cubic 

feet). 

35,000 

40,000 

30,000 

9, 500 .. .............. 744 

1,000 

280 

7,250 

4,600 

9,000 

800 

1,000 

·450 

500 c 10,000 

250 ................... 

.............. 

........... 

Oklahoma. 

Producing sand. 

Age. Depth (feet). 

Pennsylvanian .... 2,340 . .... do ........... 1,950 ..... do ....... · .... 1,450 . .... do ........... 2,178 . .... do· ........... . .................. .... . do.b ...... ... 965 

Permian ........ 640 . .... do ........... 700 

Pennsylvanian .... 2,186 ..... do ........... 1,370 . .... do ........... 1,868 

Pennsylvanian? .. 930 

Permian .......... 787 

Pennsylvanian .... 610 ..... do ........... 440 . .... do ........... 1,052 

Permian .......... 574 

Pennsylvanian .... 600 ..... do ........... 600 ..... do ........... 1,988 

Date sampled. 

Sept. -,1918 

June 30,1918 ..... do ........ 1918 .......... 1918 .•........ Mar. 22, 1918 

July 31,1906 

Aug. 30, 1918 . .... do ........ . .... do ........ Aug. 29, 1918 . .... do ........ . .... do ........ Sept. 2, 1918 . .... do ........ Aug. 28, 1918 . .... do ........ Sept. 1, 1918 . .... do ........ July 18,1918 

12 26 N. 8 E. ........................... do ................... .' ...... 1918 ........ .. 12 26 N. 8 R 50 1, 000 ..... do ..... ·...... 549 July 18, 1918 

12 26 N. 8 E. 340 1, 250 .. : .. do........... 1,122 ..... do: ..... .. ..................................................... do........... e 1, 100 ..... do ....... . ......... ; ......... .' ................................. do .......................... Feb. -,·1918 ..................................................... do .......................... Feb. 9, 1918 ..................................... : ................ do .......................... Feb. -,1918 

..................................................... do ........... ·········"····· ..... do ....... . ........... : . .............. · .......................... do .......................... Feb. 14,1918 · ..................................................... do........... 1, 200 Feb. -,1918 ................................................ : .... do ........ · ....................... do ....... . ................................................... · .. do ............................... do ....... . 20 27 N. 8 E. 100 1, 000 ..... do........... 918 July 18,1918 

19 27 N. 8 E. 98 1, 020 ..... do........... 790 ...... do ...... .. 22 27 N. 8 E. 500 2, 000 ..... do........... 1, 442 ..... do ...... .. ..................................................... do ............................... do ....... . . . . . . . . . . 23 N. 3 1!:: ........................... do .......................... 1918 ......... . . . . . . . . . . 23 N. 3 K ........... c 40, 000 ..... do........... · 2, 040 .............. . ......... 23 N. 3 1!:: ........................... do ........................................ . ......... 23N. 31!:: ........................... do ........................................ . 27 19 N. 4 E. . ... · .................... · .. do .......................... Nov. 14, 1917 

27 19 N. 4 E ... : ....................... do........... (f) Jan. 24,1918 .. .. .. . .. 24 N. 6 E. g 440 hlOO, 000 ..... do.. .. . .. .. .. e 1, 100 .Tune 30, 1918 

12 1 N. 6 W ...................... Permian.......... 850 1918 ......... . ......... 3 S. 5 \V ........................... do .......................... 1918 ......... . . . . . . . . . . 3 S. 5 \V. . ......................... do .......................... 1918 ......... . . . . . . . . . . 3 S. 5 \V. . ......................... do .......................... 1918 ......... . ................................................ Pennsylvanian ................... July 8, 1906 

South Dakota • 

105 

Helium(per 

cent). 

0.089 

'l'race. 

.. 06 

.097 

. 06 

.15 

.16 

.20 

.17 

.14 

. 22 

.17 

. 27 

. 37 

.36 

. 39 

.10 

.003 

.15 

.06 

·.43 

.35 

. 27 

. 37 

.71 

. 65 

. 62 

.58 

. 62 

.48 

. 53 

. 55 

. 23 

. 54 

.33 

.48 

. 24 

. 22 

. 27 

. 22 

.35 

.05 

.05 

'l'race. 

.18 

.17 

.16 

Present. 

. I········ ·I·····~·· ·I········ ·I·········· ·I········· -I Cretaceous.---.-- -I· ............. -11906 ......... ·I· Trace . 

I Bolow 1,800 feet. g Initial average rock pressure of field. h Capacity of field . 
106 HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL QAS. 

Data on samples of natural gas 

Texas. 

Well. 

Sample No. County. Field. 

Name. 

69. ~......... Brown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bangs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fuller well ......... ~ ..................... . 71 ...... · .......... do .................... do ....................... JYicGee well ................................ . 

8:::::: ~: ~ ·~: . ~~~~d~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:::::::: . :_e_t~d~~- -. ~: ~ ~:::: ~::::::::::: . :~~~d~~-~ ~~~~~~---.- .· ~ :·:::::::: ~::::::::::::: ..... do .................... do....................... Pipe-line sample c ..•.•......••..••.....•.. 

1 ................ do .................... do....................... ~1iller "\vell4 .............................. . 2 ................ do .................... do ..................... ,. Smith & Weber well1 .................... . 3........... . ... do .................... do....................... Holloway "\veil 7 ............................. . 4 ................ do .................... do ....................... Landrum "\Veil 2 ............................. . 

5 ................ do .................... do....................... Holt "rell1 ...... ~ ......................... . 6 .... -............ do .................... do ....................... Byers well5 .............................. . 7 ................ do .................... do ....................... Stive Oil & Gas Co. welll.. .... · ............ . 8 ................ do .................... do ............. ~ ......... H. D. Stive well ........................... . 9 ................ do .................... do ....................... Skelly"'ell ................................. . 10.': .............. do .................... do ........................ Martin well5 .............................. . W ........... Coleman ............. Trickham ..................... Robinson well2 ........................... . 68 ................. do. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coleman. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wood & Wooley well L .................... . 

46. . . . . . . . . . . Eastland. . . . . . . . . . . . . Ranger. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brashear well 1 ............................. . W........... Limestone............ Mexia-Groesbeck.............. 4 samples from different wells .............. . 47 ........... Palo Pinto ............ Mineral Wells ................. G. W. Dye welll. .......................... . 

48. . . . . . . . . . . . .... do. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ... -.do. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . Ii:ol t well 1 .................. : ............. . 

49 ........... · ..... do. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . · ... do. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frank Corn well 1 ........................... . 50 ................ do .................... do ....................... Jacques well i ........................... ~ .. 

54 ................ do .................... do ....................... J.E.Hesswell2 .......................... . 

55 ................ do .................... do ....................... D. A.·Hess well1 .......................... . 56 ................ do ................... do ....................... J. E. Hess well1 ...... .' ................... . 57 ................ do .................... do ....................... Edmundson well1 ......................... . 60 ................ do .................... do ....................... Gill well1 ................................ . 38 ...............• do ............ · ... Strawn ...................... Pierce well2 .......... , .................... . 

40 ................ dp .................... do ....................... Robinson well 2 ........................... . 

41 ................. do .................... do .................. · ..... Unkhart well 271 ........................... . 42 ................ do .................... do ....................... Pipe-line sample ........................... . 72 .......... · ...... do .............. · ...... do ..... -.· ................ Stewart well 75 ............................. . 

61 ........... Shackelford .......... Moran ...................... . 62 ................ do.· ................... do ...................... . 65 ................ do .................... do ...................... . 

Formby-Tarrant well L ..................... . 

Pipe-line sample (all wells) ... .' ............ . Edwards well1 ............................ . 66 ................ do .................... do ...................... . Cottle welll. : ......................... _· .. . 67 ................ do .................... do ...................... . Stephens .............. Strawn ....... : ............. . 43 ................ do ............... Caddo ...................... . 

Pipe line~ll wells ......................... . See Palo .t'into County ................... _ .. Qoody well1 .............................. . 

39 .............. :.do ............... La Casa ...................... Rainey well1 ..................... · ........ . 

73 ................ do .................... do ........................ Adams welll ............................. . 

W ................ do. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Breckenridge.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Smith well L .............................. . 

,V ........... Throckmorton ........ Matthews ..................... Texas Co. well4 .......................... . w .... · .... -- ...... do ............. -...... do .......... -... · ......... Texas Co. \Veil m .. . - ..... - .· ..... -- .. -- ... . 

W...... . . . . . Zapata. . . . . . . . . . . . . . J onnings ... · ............................................................ . W ...... ~ . . . . Williamson... . . . . . . . . ThralL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Magnolia 0~1 Co ............................ . 

Washington. 

I . I . . . I . I A 9 .......... Benton .............. Pross0r .................................................................. ·j 

a Strawn formation. b Cisco formation. c Analysis by Moore and Yancey, Bureau of Mines Experiment Station, Golden, Colo. 

d June 1, 1918. . e January 1, 1918. 

I Initial open flow. 

gLower part of Canyon formation or upper part of Strawn formation. h Contact between Marble Falls limestone and Smithwick shale. 

-· 
• 

SAMPLES OF NATURAL GAS TESTED FOR HELIUM. 

testedfor hel~··wn-Continued .. 

Well-Continued. 

Locality. 

Rock pres- sure (potmds 

per;~)~re 

Open flow 

(M cubic 

feet). 

Texas. 

Age. 

Producing sand. 

Depth (feet). 

Date sampled. 

107 

Helium(per cent). 

NearBangs................. 430 .......... Pennsylvaniana.. 1,190 July 27,1918 0.35 

7 miles souti1 of Bangs ................................ do........... 1, 500± 1918.......... • 38 ................................................. Pennsylvanian b .. ............... Dec. 11,1917 . 985 ...................................................... do .......................... June 13, 1917 . 88 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oct. 30, 1917 . 966 

Sec. 59, school land ............................. Pennsylvanian b.. 1, 543-1,599 June 28,1918 . 71 

Sec. 37, school land........ d 75 e 192· ..... do. b.......... 1, 576-1, 583 ..... do........ 1.15 

Sec. 29, school land........ d 120 ............... do. b.......... 1, 70~1, 718 ..... do......... . 65 

Sec. 5, school land......... a 90 e3, 157 · ..... do. b.......... 1, 761 ..... do........ . 76 

Sec. 15, school land........ d 75 e 67 ..... do. b.......... 1, 564-1,571 ..... do:....... . 96 

Sec. 14, Byers Bros. survey. d 25 e 676 ..... do. b.......... 1, 568-1, 621 ..... do........ 1. 00 

Sec. 1, school land......... d 25 e 852.48 ..... do. b.......... 1, 694-1, 731 .... Ao........ . 88 

Sec. 34, school land........ ·d 185 e 962.88 ..... do. b.......... 1, 810 ..... do........ 1.11 

Sec. 36, school land........ d 80 e1, 989.12 ..... do. b.......... 1, 602-1,620 ..... do........ · . 88 

2 miles west of Petrolia..... 650 16, 000 ..... do. b.......... 1, 671-1, 683 ..... do........ 1.18 · .....•................................................ do. g ............ ••.•••••••••••• 1918 .......... None. 

7milessouthwestofColeman ........... 25,000 ..... do.g ....................... :. July 27,1918 0.22 

5 miles south of Ranger ................ : !6, 000 ..... do. h......... 3, 035 July 25, 1918 . 08 ................................................. Upper Cretaceous i ............... 1918 .......... Trace. 

1 milo southeast of Graford ....................... Pennsylvanian a.. 2, 951 July 16,1918 i 0. 2 

ll miles norti1 of Palo Pinto .......... · ................. do.a.......... 1, 270 ... ~.do ........ { j 5: g ..4 miles east of Palo Pinto ............................ . do.a.......... 2, 200 ...... do........ i 3. 0 

H miles south of Mineral .......................... do.a.......... 1, 004 ..... do........ J 3. 0 

Wells. 

5' miles south of ~fin'eral ......... · ... 10,000 ..... do. a ......... . 

Wells. 

1,052 

6milessouthofMineral Wells ........... 11,000 .... . do.a ......... . ..... do ......................... ·....... 2, 000 .... . do.a~ ........ . 7 miles south of Mineral 'Veils .......................... do.a ......... . 5inilessouthofMineral 'Veils ........................ .. do.a ......... . 

1,045 

1,035 

1, 150 

997 

Sec. 82, block 4, Texas & Pa- .......................... do. a ......... . 

cific Coal Co.'s survey. · Sec. 78, block 4, 'l'exas & Pa- 500 ............... do .......... . cific Coal Co.'s survey. 

2 miles west of Strawn....... 110 ............... do.a ......... . 

1,830 

1,508 

675 

Thurber, Erath County ............................... do. a ........ .. 

Sec. 95, block 4, Texas & Pa- .......................... do. a ......... . 

cific Coal Co.'s survey. 

600-900 

1, 000± 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................... .. do.a ......... . 2,930 . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cloJL ......... . k 2, 000 

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · .. ·........... . ... . . . . . . . . 3, 000 ..... clo.a .. : ...... . 2,000 

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •••••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • <1, 000 ..... do. a.~ ....... . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... . . . · ......................... do.a .......... . 2, 700 k 2, 000 

Sec. 41, block 4, Texas & Pa- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pennsylvanian.... 3, 298 

cific Coal Co:'s survey. 

Sec. 45, block 6, Texas & Pa- ........... 35,000 ..... do.ct.......... '1, 985 

cific Coal Co.'s survey. 

Sec. 65, block 6, Texas & Pa- . . . . . . . . . . . Large. . .... do. a.......... 2, 134 

cific Coal. Co.'s survey. · 5 miles south of Breckenridge ........... 16,000 ..... do.a.......... ~ 2, 230 

Lambshead rm1ch.......... 200 400 ..... do. z.......... 1, 050 ..... do .. · ............................................. do........... 1,050 

Jenningsranch ... •.......... 300 10,000 'l'ertiaryn......... 1,250 

· · · · · · · ·- · · · · · · · · ........................... ~.... Cretaceous o . ..•..•.••.••..•..•. 

Washington. 

July 17,1918 j 3.0 

..... do ........ j 3.0 ..... do ........ j 2. 0 

July 18,1918 j 3. 0 

Jan. -,1918 .17 

July 19,1918 .18 

..... do ........ .32 

. .... do ........ j 10.0 . .... do ........ .19 

Jan. -,1918 .17 

..... do ........ .31 ..... do ........ .38 

July 24, 1918 .39 ..... do ........ .41 ..... do ........ .27 

July 21,1918 .07 

..... do ........ Trace. 

..... do ........ Trace. 

June -,1918 

1918 ......... . 1!)18 ......... . 1918 ......... . 1918 ........ .. 

.44 

. 22 

.73 

. 006 

None. 

----------------------------1 51 4, 500 I Tertiary P.· ...•..• -I 730 I Aug. 19,1918 0.06 

·~ Nacatoch sand member of Navarro formation. 

I Nitrogen. 

k Average depth of wells. l Possibly Cisco formation. m Number of well doubtful. n Yegna formation, Eocene. o Gas and oil derived from a body of serpentine in Cretaceous strata, at horizon of lower part of Taylor marl. p Gas from sand beneath Tertiary lava flow. 
108 HELIUM-BEARING NATURAL GAS. 

Data on samples of natural gas 

West Virginia. 

Well. 

Sample No. County. Field. 

Name. 

C 39 ......... Monongahela ...................................... Bowlby well 1. ............................ . 

Wyoming. 

. I . ~ 5. . . . . . . . . B1g Horn ........... : . I;amb dome... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pipe-line sample, five wells ................ . .J..i 6 .............. do ............... Brvon ....................... Pipe-line sample, three wells .............. . F 13. . . . . . . . Carbon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alien Lake................... Cosden Oil Co. well L ..................... . 

l!' 14 ............. do .................... do ............................ do .................................... . F 11. ....... Freemont ........... ·. Big Sand Draw ............... Producers & Refiners' Co. welll. .......... . F 9 ... ·: .... Hot Springs ......... Buffalo Basin ................. M_cFar_lane welL .......................... ·.· F 10 ............. do: .............. Grass Creek ................... P1pe-line sample ........................... . W .... · ... .' ... Natrona .............. Emigrant Gap ................ New York Oil Co. welll. .................. . W ................ do .................... do ....................... Curtis Oil Co. well1 ....................... . FL ............. do ............... Salt Creek .................... Pipe-line sample ....................... ·.· ... . F 2 .............. do ............... Powder River ................ Ohio Oil Co., tw·o wells ..................... . F 3 .............. do ............... Pine Mountain ............... ~ Pine Mountain Dome Oil Co. well 1. ........ . 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~::: . ~~~d~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~::: ~:: : ~ : . ?~~~d~. ~~~~-- ~ ~:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:: ~:: ir:~U>~h~~ -~~ii .. ::::: ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : : : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: : 

F 12 ........ Sweetwater ........... Dry Lake .................... John Hay well1 .......................... . FA ......... Washakie ............. Hidden Dome ................ Tensleep well2 ........................... . 

a Probably from Big Injun sand. b Capacity of field. c Frontier formation, Colorado group. d Average depth of wells. e Cloverly formation, Lower Cretaceous. 

t Casing-head gas. · 

• 
• 

• 

SAMPLES OF NATURAL GAS TESTED FOR HELIUM. 109 

tested jot hel·iwn-Continued. West Virginia . 

Well-Continued. . Producing sund. 

JJOCality. Rock pres- Date sampled. Helium(per 

Of:n flow sure (pounds ( cubic Age. Depth (feet). 

Section. I 'l'ownshlp.l Range. pei1~~W)~re feet). 

10 mile~ west of Morgantown. 160 .......... Mississippian a .. _. 1,800 Aug. 18, 1906 

Wyoming • 

.. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . . __ ... 62 bl9, 000 Cretaceous c_.... clf500 Sept. 10,1918 

......... ......... ......... 350 bJOO,OOO ..... do.e .. ~------- 1,550-1,840 ..... do ....... . 34 23N. 79W ........................... do............ 1,357 Sept. 16,1918 

34 23N. 79W ........................... do ..... :..... 947 ..... do ....... . 10 32N. 95\V. 1,250 8,000 ..... do.c.......... 2,412 ..... do ....... . 12 47 N. 100 W. 400 blOO, 000 ..... do. c.......... 1, 700 Sept. 12, 1918 ........................ _.. (/) 3, 000 ..... do. c.......... cl700-l, 200 ..... do ........ ....... .. ..... .... ......... ..... ...... ............... do ........... ----- .......... --------------- ··· ................................... ------- ........ do ...................... , .................. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . (/) bl2, 000 _. __ .do.u ... _ ...... ell, 000-2,250 Sept. 5,1918 

.. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . 300 2, 250 ..... do.u.......... 800, 1, 267 Sept. 7,1918 

36 34 N. 83 W. 200 1, 000 Carboniferous h.... 1, 668 ..... do ........ 5 51 N. 100 W. 675 16, 000 Cretaceous i. . . . . 1, 345 Sept. 12, 1918 

32 51N. lOOW. 400 3,000 ..... do.e ....... ·... 1,300 ..... do ........ 20 18 N. 103 W. 40 2. 5 ..... doJc.......... 2, 390 Sept. 16, 1918 

31 48 N. 90 W. 725 4, 000 ..... do. z.......... 1, 045 Sept. 9,1918 

g Wall Creek sandstone member of Frontier formation, Colorado group. h 'Ponsleop sandstone or Em bar formation. 4 Sample lost during analysis, but helium content closely estimated . 

J Greybull sand, Lower Cretaceous. A: Dakota(?) formation, Lower Cretaceous. l Colorado group (Frontier (?) formation). 

cent). 

0.09 

'rrace. 

Trace. 

None. 

None. 

Trace. 

0.07 

Trace. 

Trace . Trace. 

None. 

Trace. 

iO. 26± 

Trace. 

0.09 

Trace. 

Trace. 
• 

.. 
• 

INDEX. 

A. 

Page. 

Acknowledgments for aid ....................................... 8-9, 42 

Actinium, radioactivity of. ...................................... 13-14 

Ago of mlnornls, nllation or, to content of helium ................. 46-47 

Air·. Sec Atmosphere. 

Alberta. See Bow Island field. 

Ailon, H. C.,acknowlodgment to................................. 8 

Ambrose, A. W., workof. ....................................... 8,95 

Analyses of natural gas ............................... 36,3:), 71, 74, 82,87 

Appalachian region, geology of .•................................. 29-31 

hollnm resources of ........................................... 90-91 

location of. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28-29 

Apparatus used in quantitative determination of helium, plate 

showing.............................................. 42 

Arbuckle Mountains, Okla., stratigraphy of ...................... 25-26 

Argon, discovery of. ..... :....................................... 15 

Atmosphere, content of holitun in .... ·_ .. · ......................... 52-53 

derivation of helium In natural gus from ...................... 67-68 

rncliooctivity of .............................................. 58-59 

August!\ field, Kans., loclltion and geology of ..................... 72-73 

quantity and qullllty or gus in ........ -- .. ---- ......... 73-75,98-101 

Austrill, helium content of gases in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33-34 

B. 

13nlloons, uso or helium in ........ -.. -...... -.. ---------.- ... ---- 5-6 

l3angs, Tox., gus ncar ....................... __ ................... 90 

gas noor, tests of. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106-107 

Booumont field, Kans., he~um-rich gas in ................... £3,100-101 

Bocqnorol, H., discovery of radioactivity by..................... 11 

Boroo sand, hollmn-beuring gus from ....................... 29, 31,63-64 

Billings fiold, Oklll., description of. .............................. 84-85 

tests or gas from ........ --.- ............. --- .. -.------.---- 104-105 

Blackwell field, Okla., description of............................. 84 

tests of gas from ............................................. 104-105 

Bow Island field, Alberta, Canada, resources of helium in ........ 33,92 

Breckenridge field, Tox., helium-bearing gas in .............. 90,106-107 

Burger, Emily V., work of ....................... ,............... 42 

c,. 

Caddo field, Tox., gas in ................................ · .... 90,106-107 

Cady, H. P., acknowledgment to................................. 42 

and McFarland, D. F., discoveries made by ................. 5, 6,10 

samples coJlected and analyzed by....................... 95 

California, tests of gases from ............................... 32-33, 96-97 

Cmnbrian formations, nature and thickness of, In the Mid-Continent field............................................ 20 

Canada, helium-bearing gasesin ............................... 32,33,92 

Canyon formation, helium content of gases in.................... 28 

Carbon dioxide, content of, In natural gas ........................ 36,37 

Carboniferous formations, helium content of gases from........... 32 

nature and thiclmess of, in the Mid-Continent re:rion ......... 19-20 

Caruotite, composition of gases extracted from................... 43 

occurrence of ...............•.•••........ : . ........... _ ..... _ 63 

Carter 011 Co., aclmowledgment to ............................ __ . 9 

Caves, mclioactivity of air in .................... _ ....... ___ ...... 54 

Collars, radioactivity of air ln ........... .' ...... _._................ 54 

Cisco formation, helium-rich gas in ........................ _ ...... 27-28 

Claude process or extracting helium, outline of. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 

Clinton sand, helium-hooring gases from .......................... 29-31 

nature and position or........................................ 90 

Coal, radium content of. ... -----~------.......................... 55 

Coal-mine gases, composition or. ................... :............. 47 

Coalinga field, Calif., helium-bearing gas from ................. 33,96-97 

Coleman, Tmc., gas near ..................................... 90,106-107 

Collection, methods or. .••.•................................... :.. 9 

Colorado, test or gasfrom ......................................... 96-97. 

Cost or producing helium......................................... 7-8 

Cretaceous formations, helium in gases or. .................. 27, 32, 33,34 

Curio, Mmo., discovery of radimu by............................. 11 

Czak6, Emerich, investigation by ................................ 33-34 

D. 

Page. 

Decay, rate of,in the radio-elements ............. :............... · 46 

Denman, Arthur, acknowledgment to............................ 8 

Depth, relation of helitun content to ....................... 23-24,27,31 

Derivation of helium from radium ................................ 12-13 

Determination of helium, methods for ............................ 40-42 

Devonian Oil Co., acknowledgment to........................... 9 

De.xter, Kans., gas field, description of ............ ·............... 76 

tests of gas from. . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100-101 

Dexter-Otto district, Kans., description of ....................... 75-77 

Discoveries of helium ........................................... 5,9-10 

Disintegration, theory and operation of. .......................... 11-14 

Distribution of helium, generaL ...................... : ........... 42,61 

in natural gas ................................. 17-18,27-28,31,32-34 

Distribution of the radio-clt~ments ........ : ....................... 54-55 

Dobbin, C. E., work of.. ......................................... 8,95 

E. 

Eagle sandstone, helium-bearing gas from........................ 32 

Eastman, H. M:., work of................ . .. .. . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . 42 

Eldorado field, Kans., location and geology of .................... 70-71 

quality and volume of gas in ........................... 71-72,98-99 

Elmdale field, Kans., description of .............................. 69-70 

tests of gas from. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100-101 

Empire Gas & Fuel Co., acknowledgments to.................... 8, 9 

Eureka, Kans., helium-rich gas from............................. 83 

Europe, helitrm content and radioactivity of gases in ............. · 33-34 

possibilities of helium in..................................... 93 

Extraction of helium, processes for ............................... 6, 7-S 

record of..................................................... 6-7 

:F. 

Fath, A. E., cited ................................................ 21-23 

Field work, scope of......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 

Fillmore, Calif., helitrm content of gases from ............... 32-33,96-97 

Fisher, C. A., acknowledgment to................................ 8,95 

Fort Worth, Tex., production at................................. 6-7 

Fossil helium, source of.......................................... 62 

France, occurrences of helium in. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 

Fumaroles, helium in gases from ..... -: ..................... 51-52,61,93 

G. 

Gas, natural, analyses of. .... : ....................... 36, 39, 71, 74, 82,87 

natural, collection of......................................... 9 

constituents of ........................................... 35-36 

helitrm-bearlng, composition of. .......................... 38-40 

origin of. ...........•...... ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 

varieties of. . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36-38 

"wet" and "dry," constituents oL. .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . ... .. . 35 

Gases from coal mines, helium content of. ..................... 47-,18, Gl 

from mineralsprings, helium content and radioactivity of .... 48-51 

rare, association of helium with ............................... 15-17 

Geology of areas containing helium-bearing gas ................. 18-23, 

24-27,29-31,32,69,71,73,77-78,82,86,90 

Gormrmy, helium content of gas in .......... ___ ................. 33 

Globigerina ooze, radium content of........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 

Granite ridge in the Mid-Continent field, contour of .............. 20-21 

origin of ....................... _, ............................. 21-23 

H. 

Havre, Mont., helium content of gas from ................... ;,2, 102-103 

Hocking County pool, Ohio, gas in ............................... 90,91 

Hominy field, Okla., gas in ...................................... , 84 

Hydrogen sulphide, content of, in natural gas .................... 36,37 

I. 

Icel!lnd, helium in gases from hot springs of...................... 51 

Indiana, test of gas from .......................................... 98-9!> 

Ingalls field, Kans.,description of................................ 85 

tests of gas from ............................................ 10·1-105 

"!so-helium" lines, possibility of drawing........................ 23 

Italy,helium content of gases in.................................. 33 

resources of helium in. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 

111 
.112 J:NDEX. 

J. 

Jeffries-Norton process of extracting helium, outline of ........ . 

K. 

Page. 

7 

Kansas,area of helium-bearing gas in............................. 18 · 

minor gas fields in ............................................ 83-84 

production ofnaturalgasin.................................. 83-

southern, map of gas fields in ........... · ....... :.............. 18 

tests of gases from ........................................... 98-103 

Kansas City group, helium-rich gas in............................. 23 

Kayser, H., discoveries by ..................................... ,. 10 

Krypton, discovery and properties of............................. 15 

L. 

La Casa field, Tex., gas in ................................. 90,106-107 

Lead, combination of, with helium ... ,............................ 53 

derivation of, from uranium ....... : .......................... 12-13 

from thorium. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . .. .. . .. .. .. .. . . . . . 13 

Lewis, J. 0., arknowledgJU~nt to................................. 8 

Linde process of extracting helium, outline of.................... 7 

Llano-Burnet area, ':f'ex., stratigra~hy of. ........................ 25-27 

Lockridge welll, log of ..... ~..................................... 86 

Lockyer, J. N., discoveries by ... ,, ......... :..................... 9 

Lone Star Gas Co., acknowledgments to.......................... 8, 9 

Lonisiana,heliumcontentofgasesfrom .................. 27,32;_102-103 

M:. 

Mcintosh, Allen,log of well No.1 of............................... 80 

Map, ge<'llogic, ofMid-Continentregion. .......................... 20 

of gas fields in southern Kansas and northern Oklahoma..... 18 

· ofoilandgasfieldsinnorthern Texas and southern Oklahoma. 24 

Matthews ranch, Throckmorton County, Tex. ,gas wells on. 89-90, 106-107 

Measurement ofradioactivity,method of ......................... 53-M 

Mid-Continent region, Carboniferous formations in ............... 19-20 

geologic map of... . . . . .. .. . .. . . . . .. . . . .. .. . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 20 

geology of ................................................... ·. 18-23 

helium resources of. .......................................... 69-85 

location oC:................................................... 18 

pre-Carboniferous formations in .............................. 20-23 

stratigraphic distribution of helium in........................ 23 

. ::~~~i;~~J!e~i;~~ii~-~:~::::::::: :·:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ;: 

Mine gases, helium content of..: ............................... 47-48,61 

:Mineral waters, radioactivity of. . : ............................... ~ 57-58 

Mineral Wells field, Tex., gas in ............................. 90,106-107 

Minerals, helium content of. .................................. 43-45, 61 

Mines, coal, rare gases in fire damp from .......................... 16-17 

Mississippian formations, helium-bearing gas in .............. 23,27 

occurrence of, in the Mid-Continent field ................... ·.. 20 

Missouri, tests of gases from .................................... 102-103 

Moore, R. B., acknowledgment to................................ 8, 42 

Monazite, occurrence of.. . .. .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . . . .. .. . . .. .. . .. .. . . . 63 

Monett field, Kans., description of................................ 81 

test of gas from............................................... 100 

Montana, tests of gases from .................................... 102-103 

Moran field., Tex., helium-bearing gas in .................... 90,106-107 

Morrison field, Okla., description of.............................. 85 

tests of gaSes from .......................................... 104-105 

Moureu Charles researches by ................................... 48-51 

Myers fteld, Ohla., description of.. .............................. 81-82 

N. 

Neon, discovery and properties of............................... 15 

Nitrogen association of helium with .............................. 64-65 

cont~t of,in natural gas ............. , .................... 18,36,37 

relation of, to helium in gases of mineral springs.............. 50 

to helium in natural gas ............................... 38-40,84 

separation of, from helium ........... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40-42 

source of, in mineral gases .................................... 37,67 

North Dakota, test of gas from ................................. 102-103 

North Texas. See Texas, northern. 

0. 

Occurrences of helium, summary of.............................. 61 

0hio area, distribution of helium in.............................. 31 

. f;~~~! ~i. ~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~!. tests of gases from ........ _._ .............. · ............ ' ..... 102-103 

Page. 

Oklahoma, area ofhelium-bearmg gasin •••••............ .'....... 18 

minor gas fields in ............................................ 84-85 

northern, map of gas fields in................................. 18 

production of natural gas in.................................. 83 

southern, map of oii and gas fieldsin........ .... .. .. .... .. .. . 24 

tests of gases from .......................................... 104-105 

Oklahoma Natural Gas Co., acknowledgment to ...... ·............ 8 

Ordovician formations in the Mid-Continent field................. 20 

Origin of helium................................................. 35 

Osage County, Okla., fields in: ................................... 81-83 

· resources of helium in ........................................ ·91-92 

Otto, Kans., gas wells near, tests of gas from ....... : ............ 77, 100 

P. 

Pacific Coast region, helium content of gases in ................ 32-33, 91 

Pearson field, Okla., description of. .. ;........................... 81 

resources of helnun in ...................... : ................. 91-92 

tests of gas from ............................................ 104-105 

P!'lchelbronn, Alsace, helitun content of gas near .................. 33-34 

volume of gas near ...... :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 

Pennsylvanian formations, helitun-rich rases in ............... 23, 27-28 

occurrence of, in the Mid-Continent field ..................... 19-20 

Permian formations, helium-bearing gases in .. ~ ............... 23,27-28 

occurrence of, in the Mid-Continent field. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 

Petrolia field, Tex., composition of gas in ......................... 86-87 

duration of supply in ................................ · ......... 87-89 

location and geology of ....................................... 85-86 

production from ............................. , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 87 

tests of gas from. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106-107 

Petroleum, analyses of........................................... 38 

radioactivity-of............................................... 58 

Pine Mountain, vVyo., helium content of gas from................ 32· 

Pitchblende, composition of gases extracted from................. 43 

Ponca City field, Olda., description of............................ 84 

tests of gas from .. · .......................................... 104-105 

Potassium, radioactivity of .................................... :.. 14 · 

Potassium salts, helium content of............................... 45 

Pre-Cambrian granite, depth to, in the ~lid-Continent field ....... 20..23 

Pre-Carboniferous formations in the 1.fid-Contincnt field .......... 2G-23 

Primordial helium, probability of ............................. 66-67, 68 

Production of helium, natural, estimates of ....................... 59-60 

natural, rate of............................................... 14 

See also Extraction of helium. 

Properties of helium ............... · ............................. 6, 1G-ll 

R. 

Radioactivity, measurement of.. ..... , ........................... 53-54 

of mineral waters ............................................. 57-58 

of natural gas. . . .. . .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 

of petroleum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 

of sea water.......... . .. . .. .. .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. .. . . . . . 59 

of the atmosphere... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58-59 

phenomena and theory of. ................................... 11-14 

presence of helium inferred from .............................. 53, 61 

relation of, to content of helium ........................ 45, 47, 48-50 

Radio-clements, derivation of helium from ..... · ............... 62-66, 68 

distribution of. ............................................... 54-59 

Radiolarian ooze, radium content of.............................. 55 

Radmm, content of, in rocks .... · ................................. 54-56 

content of, in sea water....................................... 59 

derivation of, from uranium ................................. 12-13 

derivation of helium from .. : ................................. 12-13 

discovery of. ....................... ~.:.'..................... 11 

Ramsay, J. B., work of ....... ,................................... ,12 

Ramsay, William, discoveries by ............................... 9-10, 15 

Ranger field, Tex., gasin .. _ ................................. 90,106-107 

Resources of helium in the United States ......................... 91-92 

outside of the United States .................................. 92-93 

Richardson, George B., cited..................................... 31 

work of .............. ·........................................ 8, 95 

Rocks, helium content of.. .................................... 45-46,61 

radium content of ......................... -· .............. 54-56,61 

thorium content of ........•..••...........................•.• 56-57 

uranium content of. .................................. :....... 57 

Rocky Mountain region, helitun content of gases in ..........•. 32-33,91 

Rogers gas pool, Kans., description of ............................ 77-79 

Roundy, P. V., work of.......................................... S, 95 

Roxana Petroleum Co., acknowledgment to...................... 9 

Rubidium, ra<lioactivity of....................................... 14 

· Russia,.possibilities of helium in.. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. • 93 

• 

• 
• 

IND~.X. 113 

S. Page. 

Santa Marla field, Calit., helium-bearing gas from............... 33 

Scope of tho investigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 

Sedan district, Kans., description of .............................. 77-81 

tests of gas from ............................................ 100-101 

Solbel, C. W., acknowledgment to................................ 8 

description by, of method of determining helium ............. 41-42 

tests made by................................................ s, 95 

Sespo formation, helitun-bearing gas from........................ 33 

Soils, radioactivity of............................................ 54 

Somcos of helium .......................................... 12-13, 61-68 

South Dakota, test of gas from ................................. 104-105 

Sphene, helium content of........................................ 45 

Springs, mineral, helium in gases from ..................... 48-51,61,93 

mineral, radioactivity of waters of ............................ 57-58 

rare gases in ................ ; ............................. 16-17 

hot, helium in gases from ............. ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 

Stnrs, helium in ....................................... · ........... 53, 61 

radio-clements nbscnt from .......... : ........................ 53; 61 

Stnssfurt snits, helium content of................................. 45 

StiJJO Oil & Ons Co.,log of well of................................ 86 

Stratigrnphic distribution of helium in tho north ·Texas region ... 27-28 

of helium-rich gases....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 

Sec also Geology. 

Strnwn field, Tex., gas in .................................... 90,106,107 

Strnwn formntion, helium content or gases in..................... 28 

Strutt, n.. J., rosonrchos by .................................... 43-46,54 

Summnry of occurrences of helium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 

Sun, helium in ..................... ~............................. 53 

T. 

Tortinry formations, helium content of gnses from ................ a2, 33 

1.'osts of gnsos for helium, catalogue of ........................... 95-109 

Texas, northern, distribution of helium in ........................ 27-28 

northern, gns fields in ........................................ 85-90 

gas fields in, mnp showing................................ . 24 

geology or................................. . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . 24-27 

location of................................................ 24 

tests of gases from ... _._ .••••••••••..••..•.•••.•.•.•••.... 106-107 

10135°-21--8 

Page. 

Texas Co., acknowledgment to................................... 9 

Thorianitc, helium content of.................................... 45 

Thoriqm, absence of, from the stars. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. . .. . 53 

association of helium with .................................... #-45 

content of, in rocks ........................... · ................ 56-57 

disintegration o'r.............................................. 13 

Trickham field, Tex., gas in ................................ 90, 106-107 

u. 

Uranium, absence of, from the stars............................... 53 

association of helium with .................................... 44-45 

derivation of lead f~om ................................ · ....... 12-13 

derivation of radium from .............. : ..................... 12-13 

Usc of helium in balloons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6 

v. 

Van Orstrand, C. E., work of..................................... 8 

Vesuvius, rare gases in emanations from .......................... 16-17 

Viliton County field, Ohio, gas in ................................ 90-91 

gas in, tests of ...................... : ....................... 102-103 

helium rosoi.uces in .. , .............................. ~: ........ 91, 92 

Volcanic gases, content of helium in ........................... 51-52,61 

W. 

Wagy, E. W., work of............................................ 8,95 

Ward, C. F., work of............................................. 8, 95 

Washington, test of gas from ................................... 106-107 

West Virginia, test of gas from .............................. : .. 108-109 

White, David, acknowledgmon~ to............................... 8 

Wichita Mountains, Okla., stratigraphy of. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 

Wilbarger County, Tex., exhausted wells in...................... 89 

"Wind" gas, inert constituents of ................................ 24, 37 

Wyoming, tests of gases from ................................... 10~109 

X. 

Xenon, discovery and properties of. ........... : ............ ~..... 15 

z. 

Zircon, helium content of.......................................... 45 

0 .