Wiseman and Eckels (2020) Proven and Hypothetical Helium Resources in Utah-Mp-174

SCHOOL AND INSTITUTIONAL TRUST LANDS ADMINISTRATION Plate 1
Produced in collaboration with Utah Geological Survey Miscellaneous Publication 174

UTAH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Proven and Hypothetical Helium Resources in Utah
Utah Department of Natural Resources
-114°20' -114°10' -114° -113°50' -113°40' -113°30' -113°20' -113°10' -113° -112°50' -112°40' -112°30' -112°20' -112°10' -112° -111°50' -111°40' -111°30' -111°20' -111°10' -111° -110°50' -110°40' -110°30' -110°20' -110°10' -110° -109°50' -109°40' -109°30' -109°20' -109°10' -109° -108°50' -108°40' -108°30' -108°20' -108°10' -108° -107°50'
CARIBOU Fogarty Creek
TWIN POWER Lake Ridge
FALLS BANNOCK Tip Top

SUBLETTE FREMONT
42°20'
42°20'
(0.62% He) Pp,
(0.56% He)IPt,
(0.66% He) Mm,
(1.32%He) Obh
CASSIA ONEIDA BEAR LAKE

FRANKLIN
42°10'
42°10'
I D A H O
19 W 14 W 13 W 12 W 11 W 10 W 9W 8W 7W 6W 5W 4W 3W 2W 1W 1E 2E 3E 4E 5E BEAR 6E 7E 8E
18 W 17 W 16 W 15 W
42°
42°
15 N
15 N
LAKE LINCOLN Horse Trap
14 N
14 N
CACHE 13 N LABARGE-SHUTE
41°50'
41°50'
13 N CREEK
720 MMcfd
12 N
12 N Logan Baxter
Basin
GREEN North
RICH 11 N Table Rock
41°40'
41°40'
11 N
Bruff
(1.52%
He) Mm
SWEETWATER (0.33%
He) Mm
10 N
10 N
RIVER
Baxter Basin South
Brigham City (0.9% He) Kd,
41°30'
41°30'
9N Church Buttes
(0.92% He) Pp
9N
BOX ELDER BASIN
Camel Rock Brady
8N
8N
41°20'
41°20'
Pretty
WEBER
7N
7N Water
Creek
UINTA CARBON
GREAT 6N
6N Ogden
SALT
41°10'
41°10'
5N
5N LAKE
ELKO
4N
DAVIS MORGAN 4N
W Y O M I N G
8E 9E 10 E 11 E 12 E 13 E 14 E 15 E 16 E 17 E 18 E 19 E 20 E 21 E 22 E 23 E 24 E 25 E
41°
41°
Farmington Manila
Clay Basin
3N 3N
(0.48%
Coalville FLAMING GORGE He) IPPw
NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
DAGGETT
2N 2N
SUMMIT
40°50'
40°50'
SAND WASH
C O L O R A D O
1N 1N
Salt Lake
City
BASIN
N E V A D A
1S UINTA UPLIFT 1S
40°40'
40°40'
2S SALT LAKE 2S
UINTAH MOFFAT
3S 3S
Tooele
Heber City
40°30'
40°30'
B A S I N
DINOSAUR
DUCHESNE
4S Vernal NATIONAL 4S
WASATCH MONUMENT
5S Bluebell
5S
40°20'
40°20'
6S
TOOELE Altamont
6S
UTAH Provo
N. Myton Bench
7S 7S
LAKE Rangely
40°10'
40°10'
Duchesne (0.8%
UINTA BASIN He) PIPw
8S
UTAH 8S
A N D
Monument Butte Natural Buttes
9S 9S
40°
40°
10 S 10 S RIO BLANCO
DRAGON TRAIL GAS
11 S PROCESSING FACILITY
11 S
ELT
39°50'
39°50'
60 MMcfd
Missouri Douglas Creek

CARBON Creek (0.37% He) Kd,
ST B
12 S 12 S (0.7% He) Jm
Baxter Pass
Nephi Foundation
JUAB LITTLE SAHARA
RECREATION AREA
(0.77% He) Kd
Creek
PICEANCE BASIN
39°40'
39°40'
HRU
13 S 13 S
Douglas Pass
Price
R A N G E
ER T
14 S 14 S
South Canyon
(0.9% He) Kd
Drunkards Wash GARFIELD
39°30'
39°30'
Grassy Trail San Arroyo 15 S
SEVI
15 S (1.0% He) Jm,

(1.22% He) TRm
(0.9% He) Je 15.5 S Garmesa Rulison
WHITE PINE (0.31% He) Kd,
16 S 16 S Bridle (0.46% He) Je
Westwater
Bar X
39°20'
39°20'
17 S SANPETE Harley Dome
17 S (0.74% He) Kd, (0.47%
He) Jm, (0.94% He) Je Asbury Creek
U
Manti Woodside (2.8% He) Jm,

18 S (1.51% He) Pk, (7.31% He) Je
H
Castle Dale 18 S
(0.3% He) IPp Persigo Wash
A
HARLEY DOME PLANT

39°10'
39°10'
30 MMcfd
Greater Cisco
C
19 S (0.66% He) Kcm, 19 S

L
E
(1.47% He) Jm
EL
MILLARD
T
SW
20 S 20 S
T
A
EMERY
Green River
MESA
UN
39°
39°
L
A
Fillmore
E
21 S 21 S
FA
CO
S
RA
M
GRAND
L
22 S
PA
22 S
A
Salt Wash
N
38°50'
38°50'
H
(1.8% He) Ml
DELTA
P
SA
GR
23 S
SEVIER
23 S
W
Richfield
E
ARCHES
NATIONAL
UP
24 S Temple Springs PARK 24 S
Prospect
LI
38°40'
38°40'
(2.77% He) De
FT
25 S BowKnot
k Big Flat 25 S
Prospect (1.7% He) Ml LA SAL
(1.47% He) Ml Moab MTNS.
26 S Long Canyon
26 S
38°30'
38°30'
C O L O R A D O
CAP
27 S 27 S
ITO
Loa CANYONLANDS
L RE
WAYNE Hanksville NATIONAL MONTROSE

BEAVER PIUTE
EF N
28 S 28 S
PARK
38°20'
38°20'
ATI
P L A T E A U
O
Beaver
NA
29 S Wilson Canyon Lisbon

29 S
OURAY
L PA
(1.28%He) Ml,
(0.59% He) Dem
RK
30 S
38°10'
38°10'
30 S
Hamilton Creek
LISBON PLANT Lisbon Southeast (0.54% He) Pc
HENRY 60 MMcfd (0.95% He) Ml
31 S
CIRC
MTNS. BEARS EARS 31 S

NATIONAL MONUMENT
H I G H
(INDIAN CREEK)
32 S
SAN MIGUEL
LE C
SAN JUAN
38°
38°
32 S
33 S
IRON DOME
LIFF
ABAJO 33 S
GARFIELD
MTNS.
Parowan
37°50'
37°50'
P L A T E A U S
34 S
SAN JUAN
SU
34 S Doe Canyon
(2.62%
LINCOLN He) Ml
PARADOX BASIN DOLORES
PLIF
35 S
35 S
K
SAN JUAN
AR
37°40'
37°40'
T
LP
36 S
36 S
NA
P
TIO
AR
BEARS EARS
NA
N
37 S NATIONAL MONUMENT 37 S
W
Mc Elmo Dome
YO
(SHASH JAA) (1.12% He) TRc,

N
UP
CA
37°30'
37°30'
(0.55% He) De
E
WASHINGTON
YC
38 S 38 S
BR
N T
T
UME
EN
M ON Bluff
EA
N AL (0.42%
AR
ZI
39 S 39 S
TIO
UM
O
A
ON
N He) Ml
N
TE
MONTEZUMA
37°20'
37°20'
NA
LAN
TI
Lime Ridge
KANE
EA
A
TI
ON
ESC (0.6% He) Je,

ON
CR
E Rolling Mesa 40 S
CAS
40 S
RE
(0.7% He) IPp

AL
R
TAI (0.9% He) Ml Greater
M
AL
PA
S
ND
Aneth
LA PLATA
ON
RK
A SLEEPING
GR
TI
Desert Creek
NA
41 S 41 S UTE MTN.
(1.37% He) Do
N
E
37°10'
37°10'
O
NY
LIN
CA
42 S 42 S
EN
St George Ignacio-Blanco
GL
Chinle Wash
OC
Akah
43 S
Kanab Boundary Butte
(1.4% He) IPp,
East Boundary
Butte 43 S C O L O R A D O
ON
(1.5% He) Do (5.31% He) Ml

37°
37°
8E 9E 10 E 11 E 12 E
N E W M E X I C O
20 W 19 W 18 W 17 W 16 W 15 W 14 W 13 W 12 W 11 W 10 W 9.5 W 9W 8W 7W 6W 5W 4.5 W 4W 3W 2W 1W 1E 2E 3E 4E 5E 6E 6.5 E 7E 13 E 14 E 15 E 16 E 17 E 18 E 19 E 20 E 21 E 22 E 23 E 24 E 25 E 26 E
BM
A R I Z O N A
Black Rock
(0.57% He) IPp, Tec Nos Pos
(5.1% He) Ml (1.2% He) IPp Baclabito Dome
BA
(8.92% He) TRc, Chimney Rock

0 25 50 100 Miles (0.52% He) Pc (3.16% He) IPh
36°50'
36°50'
KAI
Hogback
CARRIZO (8.0% He) IPp,
0 25 50 100 Kilometers MTNS. (5.1% He) Ml
Rattlesnake
MOHAVE COCONINO NAVAJO APACHE (0.3% He) IPp,
SAN JUAN
(7.99% He) Do
Table Mesa
36°40'
36°40'
(6.05% He) IPh,

CLARK (5.73% He) Ml
SAN JUAN
Dineh Bi Keyeh Tocito Dome
BLACK MESA (4.04% He) IPh,

(5.58% He) Da
Beautiful Mountain
(4.17% He) Pc, (5.93%
(1.47% He) IPh, (2.54%
He) Ml, (7.16% He) Do BASIN
BASIN He) IPp, (5.96% He)
36°30'
36°30'
Ml, (4.16% He) Da

Sources: Esri, Airbus DS, USGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson, NCEAS, NLS, OS, NMA, Geodatastyrelsen, Rijkswaterstaat, GSA, Geoland, FEMA, Intermap and the GIS user community, Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
-114°20' -114°10' -114° -113°50' -113°40' -113°30' -113°20' -113°10' -113° -112°50' -112°40' -112°30' -112°20' -112°10' -112° -111°50' -111°40' -111°30' -111°20' -111°10' -111° -110°50' -110°40' -110°30' -110°20' -110°10' -110° -109°50' -109°40' -109°30' -109°20' -109°10' -109° -108°50' -108°40' -108°30' -108°20' -108°10' -108° -107°50'
HELIUM-RICH
HELIUM-RICH NATURAL
NATURAL GASGAS FIELDS
FIELDS APPLICATION
APPLICATION OF DATA OF DATA HELIUMRESERVOIR
HELIUM RESERVOIR ROCKS
ROCKS SURFICIAL GEOLOGIC SURFICIAL FEATURES GEOLOGIC FEATURES DATA SOURCES DATA SOURCES
Brennan, S.T., East, J.A., Dennen, K.O., Jahediesfanjani,
Brennan, S.T., East, J.A., Dennen, K.O., Jahediesfanjani, H., and Varela, B., 2018, Helium concentrations H., and
in United States Varela,
well: U.S. B., 2018, Helium
Geological concentrations
Survey ProvisionalinOnline
United States
Database,
OF UTAH
OF AND
UTAH VICINITY
AND VICINITY
Prospective helium fields and helium spot samples are defined using UPPER-LOWER
Prospective helium fields and helium spot samples are defined using
data current through 2018. The most prolific aggregator of helium
CRETACEOUS MISSISSIPPIAN
UPPER-LOWER CRETACEOUS MISSISSIPPIAN Leading edge of Basin and Leading edge of Basin and Range extension
Range extension https://www.usgs.gov/atom/71763, accessed October 2019. well:
2019.
U.S. Geological Survey Provisional Online Database, https://www.usgs.gov/atom/71763, accessed October
Kd
data current through 2018. The most prolific aggregator of helium well Dakota Sandstone
Kd Ml
Dakota Sandstone Leadville Limestone
Ml Leadville Limestone Leading edge of Sevier thrust belt Broadhead, R., 2005, Helium in New Mexico―geologic distribution,Broadhead,
resource demand, and exploration
R., 2005, Helium possibilities: New
in New Mexico―geologic Mexicoresource
distribution, Geology, v. 27, no.
demand, and4, p. 93−101.
exploration possibilities:
Tyler J. Wiseman and Marc T. Eckels well data for this map has been the U.S. Bureau of Mines (USBM), Leading edge of Sevier thrustBaars,
beltD.L., and Stevenson, G.M., 1981, Tectonic evolution of westernNew Mexico and
Colorado Geology, v. 27,Utah:
eastern no. 4,inp.New
93−101.
Mexico Geological Society Guidebook, 32nd Field Conference, Western Slope
Tyler J. Wiseman and Marc T. Eckels data for this map has been the U.S. Bureau of MinesKcm
(USBM), Cedar Mountain
Kcm Formation
Cedar Mm Formation
Mountain Madison Limestone
Mm (WY) Madison Limestone (WY) Major anticline or monocline Baars, D.L., and Stevenson, G.M., 1981, Tectonic evolution of western Colorado and eastern Utah: in New Mexico
May 2020 succeeded by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which since Major anticline or monocline Colorado, 1981, p. 105–112.
1917 succeeded
has solicited by gasthe Bureaufromofproduction
Land Management (BLM), which since
May 2020 Volcanic dike Colorado Geological Survey, 2005, OF−05−09 Shapefiles for 2002Colorado
Geological Society Guidebook, 32nd Field Conference, Western Slope Colorado, 1981, p. 105-112.
Oil and Gas FieldsSurvey,
Map of2005,Colorado: Colorado Geological
samples and wildcat wells JURASSIC DEVONIAN Geological OF−05−09 Shapefiles for 2002Survey,
Oil and Oil
Gasand GasMap
Fields Fields Open File
of Colorado: Report 05−09, Online,
Colorado
Scale: 1:850,000
Scale: 1:850,000 1917 has solicited gas samples from production
drilled in helium-prospective play areas as part of the strategic Federal and wildcat wells JURASSIC DEVONIAN Gilsonite vein Volcanic dike https://coloradogeologicalsurvey.org/publications/shapefiles-oil-gas-fields-map-colorado,
Geological Survey, Oil and accessed
Gas FieldsDecember
Open File 2019. 05−09, Online, https://coloradogeologicalsurvey.org/
Report
drilled in helium-prospective play areas as part of Jm strategic
the MorrisonJm
Formation Morrison Formation
Do Ouray LimestoneDo Ouray Limestone Chidsey, T.C., Jr., editor, 2016, Major oil plays in Utah and vicinity: Utah Geological Survey Bulletin 137, 293 p.
publications/shapefiles-oil-gas-fields-map-colorado, accessed December 2019.
Data represented on this
Helium Program. In 2015, helium analyses obtained by the USBM were Uplift boundary Gilsonite vein Chidsey, T.C., Jr., editor, 2016, Major oil plays in Utah and vicinity: Utah Geological Survey Bulletin 137, 293 p.
Data represented on this mapmap is REFERENCE
is for for REFERENCEUSE USEONLY
ONLY and and is
is not
not suitable
suitable for
forlegal, Je Craddock, W.H., Blondes, M.S., DeVera, C.A., and Hunt, A.G., 2017, Mantle and crustal gases of the Colorado Plateau ― Geochemistry, sources, and migration pathways: Geochimica Et
engineering, or surveying purposes. SITLA and the authors provide this data in good faith and digitized Federal Helium
and included Program.
in the In 2015,U.S.
publicly available helium analyses
Geological Surveyobtained by theEntrada JeSandstone Entrada Sandstone
De Elbert Formation
De Elbert Formation Tertiary/Quaternary volcanic Uplift boundary
rocks Cosmochimica Acta, no. 213, p. 346−374,
Craddock, W.H., Blondes, M.S., DeVera, C.A., and Hunt, A.G., 2017, Mantle and crustal gases of the Colorado Plateau
(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2017.05.017).
legal,shall
engineering, or surveying purposes. SITLA and the authors provide this data Dem McCracken Sandstone Member ― Geochemistry, sources, and migration pathways: Geochimica Et Cosmochimica Acta, no. 213, p. 346−374,
in good
in no event be liable for any incorrect results, or any special, indirect or consequential (USGS)
faith and shall in arising
no event
USBMenergywere digitized
geochemistry and
database. included in
In 2018, the the
USGS publicly
created available U.S. Dem McCracken Sandstone Member
Tertiary/Quaternary plutonic rocks Hill, B.G., and Bereskin, S.R., editors, 1993, Oil and gas fields of Utah. Utah Geological Association Publication 22, non-paginated.
(doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016//j.gca.2017.05.017).
damages to any party, out be
of orliable for any incorrect
in connection with the useresults, or anytospecial,
or the inability use the data a separate and condensed database specifically for United States TRIASSIC Tertiary/Quaternary volcanic rocks
indirect or consequential damages to any party, arising out of or in connection with
hereon. Geological Survey (USGS) energy geochemistry database. In 2018, TRIASSIC Da Aneth FormationDa Aneth Formation Moore, B.J., and Sigler, S.M, 1987, Analyses of natural gases, Hill, B.G.,
1917−85: andBureau
U.S. Bereskin, S.R., editors,
of Mines 1993, Oil
Information and gas
Circular fieldsU.S.
9129, of Utah. UtahofGeological
Bureau Association Publication
Mines, Washington, DC, 119722,p.
heliumtheanalyses. Subeconomic helium samples are those found below TRc Chinle Formation Undifferentiated Precambrian outcrop non-paginated.
the use or the inability to use the data hereon. USGS created a separate and condensed database specifically TRc Chinle Formation Tertiary/Quaternary plutonic rocks
Pacheco, N., and Ali, S.F., 2008, Helium resources of the United States, Moore,2007: Bureau
B.J., and Sigler,ofS.M,
Land1987,
Management
Analyses ofTechnical Note1917−85:
natural gases, 429, U.S. Bureau
U.S. BureauofofLand
MinesManagement, Denver,
Information Circular CO, 20 p.
9129,
The Miscellaneous Publication series provides non-UGS authors with a high-quality format for 0.30 mole%. Areas dominated by subeconomic helium shows do not TRm Moenkopi Formation ORDOVICIAN
for United States helium analyses. Subeconomic helium samples are TRm Moenkopi Formation ORDOVICIAN Undifferentiated Precambrian Sims,
outcropP.K., Saltus, R.W., and Anderson, E.D., 2008, Precambrian basement
U.S. structure
Bureau of map
Mines, of the
Washington,continental
DC, 1197United
p. States—An interpretation of geologic and aeromagnetic data: U.S.
documents concerning Utah geology. Although review comments have been incorporated, this necessarily infer a non-existent helium system, but rather a neglect to
The Miscellaneous
document does notPublication series toprovides
necessarily conform non-UGS
UGS technical, editorial,authors
or policy with a high-
standards. those helium-bearing
The Utah test deeper found belowformations
0.30 mole%. Areas dominated by subeconomic Obh Bighorn Dolomite
Obh (WY) Bighorn Dolomite (WY)
Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map OTHER SYMBOLS AND DESIGNATIONS
3012, scale Pacheco,
1:8,000,000. N., and Ali, S.F., 2008, Helium resources of
Note 429, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, CO, 20 p.
the United States, 2007: Bureau of Land Management Technical
in search for stratigraphically PERMIAN Smith, J.R., Tremain, C.M., and Brchan, C.A. (1991). Oil and gas fields map of Colorado: Colorado Geological Survey Map Series 26, scale 1:500,000.
higherhelium shows do not necessarily infer a non-existent helium system,Phosphoria
quality format for documents concerning Utah geology. Although review comments
Department of Natural Resources, Utah Geological Survey, makes no warranty, expressed or Sims, P.K., Saltus, R.W., and Anderson, E.D., 2008, Precambrian basement structure map of the continental United
PERMIAN State capitol
implied, regarding the suitability of this product for a particular
have been incorporated, this document does not necessarily conform to UGS use. The Utah
Natural Resources, Utah Geological Survey, shall not be liable under any circumstances for any
Department of combustible
but rather
hydrocarbons.
a neglect to test deeper helium-bearing
Pp
formations in Pp
Formation (WY)
Phosphoria Formation (WY) City SUBSURFACE FEATURES
Toner, R.N., Lynds, R.M., and Stafford, J.E., 2019, Oil and gas map ofStates—An
pubs-maps/gis, accessed October 2019.
Wyoming:interpretation
3012, scale
Wyoming State
1:8,000,000. OTHER SYMBOLS AND DESIGNATIONS
Geological
of geologic Survey Mapdata:
and aeromagnetic Series
U.S.104, scale 1:500,000,
Geological Online,
Survey Scientific https://www.wsgs.wyo.gov/
Investigations Map
Sample Pk Kaibab Formation

technical,
direct,editorial, or policy
indirect, special, standards.
incidental, The Utah Department
or consequential damages withofrespect
Natural to Resources,
claims by users of Helium
search(mol%)
for stratigraphically higherdepth (feet) hydrocarbons.
combustible Pk Kaibab Formation Natural gas processing plant with
Statehelium recovery
capitol unit U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2016, Lower 48 states shaleSmith, plays:J.R.,
U.S.Tremain,
Department C.M.,ofand
Map Series 26, scale 1:500,000.
Brchan,
Energy C.A. Domain,
Public (1991). OilOnline,
and gashttps://www.eia.gov/maps/maps.htm,
fields map of Colorado: Colorado Geological Survey
accessed October 2019.
Utah this
Geological
product. Survey, makes no warranty, expressed or implied, regarding the 8–1,000 Pc Cutler Group Documented helium reservoir U.S. Geological Survey, 1996, 1995 national oil and gas assessment plays and 1995 national oil and gas assessment 1/4-mile cells within the 3700 Wyoming Thrust Belt Province: U.S.
≤ 0.7% Pc Cutler Group County boundary Toner, R.N., Lynds, R.M., and Stafford, J.E., 2019, Oil and gas map of Wyoming: Wyoming State Geological Survey Map
suitability of this product for a particular use. The Utah Department of Natural
STATE OF UTAH
Resources, Utah Geological Survey, shall not be liable under any circumstances for ≤ 1.2% Helium (mol%) Sample depth (feet)
PIPw Weber Sandstone
PIPw Weber Sandstone Proven oil and/or gas field
State boundary
City SUBSURFACE FEATURES
Geological Survey Energy Resource Program ― Provisional
U.S. Geological Survey, 2000, Geologic assessment of coal in the Colorado
Database,
Series Online,
104,
U.S. EnergyPlateau:
https://certmapper.cr.usgs.gov/data/apps/noga-data/?provcode=5037,
scale
Information
1:500,000, Online,
Administration,
Arizona,
https://www.wsgs.wyo.gov/pubs-maps/gis,
Colorado,2016,NewLower
Mexico 48 states
and Utah: shaleU.S.
accessed
plays:Geological
U.S. Department
accessed
October
SurveyofEnergy
2019.
Energy Public
October
Domain,
Resource
2019.
Program ―
1,000–10,000 Coal and hydrocarbon productive region Natural gas processing plant with helium
Provisional recovery
Database, Online, unit
https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/pp1625B,Online, https://www.eia.gov/maps/maps.htm,
accessed October 2019. accessed October 2019.
any direct, indirect, School
special,and Institutional
incidental, Trust Lands
or consequential Administration
damages with respect to ≤ 2.5% ≤ 0.7% 8 - 1,000 PENNSYLVANIAN Uintah Special Meridian (USM) boundary U.S. Geological Survey, 1996, 1995 national oil and gas assessment plays and 1995 national oil and gas assessment
claims by users of this product. ≤ 4.0% PENNSYLVANIAN Major sedimentary basin Documented helium reservoir County boundary U.S. Geological Survey, 2015, Energy Geochemistry Database: U.S. Geological Survey
1/4-mile cellsEnergy Resource
within the ProgramThrust
3700 Wyoming ― Provisional Database,
Belt Province: Online, https://certmapper.cr.usgs.gov/data/apps/geochem-
U.S. Geological Survey Energy Resource Program ―
Produced in collaboration with ≤ 1.2% 10,000–18,400 IPt Tensleep Formation (WY) PLSS Township/Range db/, accessed August 2019. Provisional Database, Online, https://certmapper.cr.usgs.gov/data/apps/noga-data/?provcode=5037, accessed
≤ 7.5% 1,000 - 10,000 IPp IPt
Paradox Formation Tensleep Formation (WY)
Precambrian basement-involved
Proven thrust
oil fault
and/or gas field State boundary
Utah Trust Lands mineral ownership Whidden, K.J., Anna, L.O., Pearson, K.M., and Lillis, P.G., 2012, Assessment
October of undiscovered
2019. oil and gas resources in the Paradox Basin province, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and
≤ 2.5% Subeconomic helium show IPp Paradox Formation
Precambrian basement-involved high-angle fault Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2012–3031, 4 p. U.S. Geological Survey, 2000, Geologic assessment of coal in the Colorado Plateau: Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico
≤ 10.0% IPh Hermosa Group Coal and hydrocarbon productive region
National Park, Monument, or Recreation Area Meridian (USM)
Utah Geological Survey ≤ 4.0% IPh Hermosa Group Uintah Special boundary
Wood, R.E. and Chidsey, T.C., Jr., 2015, Oil and gas fields map of Utah: and Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Energy Resource Program ― Provisional Database, Online,
Utah Geological Survey Circular 119, scale 1:700,000, Online, https://geology.utah.gov/resources/energy/
https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/pp1625B, accessed October 2019.
10,000 - 18,400 Major sedimentary basin PLSS Township/Range
geologic-resource-maps/, accessed October 2019.Map this product.Series 104, scale 1:500,000, Online, https://www.wsgs.wyo.gov/pubs-maps/gis, accessed October 2019.
U.S. Geological Survey, 2015, Energy Geochemistry Database: U.S. Geological Survey Energy Resource Program ―
a division of ≤ 7.5% Provisional Database, Online, https://certmapper.cr.usgs.gov/data/apps/geochem-db/, accessed August 2019.
Precambrian basement-involved thrust fault Whidden, K.J., Anna, L.O., Pearson, K.M., and Lillis, P.G., 2012, Assessment of undiscovered oil and gas resources in
PROVEN AND HYPOTHETICAL HELIUM
RESOURCES IN UTAH
by Tyler J. Wiseman and Marc T. Eckels
MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATION 174

SCHOOL AND INSTITUTIONAL
TRUST LANDS ADMINISTRATION
Produced in collaboration with
UTAH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
UTAH DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
2020
Blank pages are intentional for printing purposes.
RESOURCES IN UTAH
by Tyler J. Wiseman 1 and Marc T. Eckels 2
1 Utah Trust Lands Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah

2 Consultant, Park City, Utah
Cover photo: Lisbon gas processing facility in San Juan County, Utah.
This plant recently re-started processing helium.
Suggested citation:
Wiseman, T.J., and Eckels, M.T., 2020, Proven and hypothetical helium resources in Utah: Utah Geological Survey
Miscellaneous Publication 174, 44 p., 1 plate, scale 1:850,000, https://doi.org/10.34191/MP-174.
MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATION 174

SCHOOL AND INSTITUTIONAL
TRUST LANDS ADMINISTRATION
Produced in collaboration with
UTAH DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
2020
STATE OF UTAH
Gary R. Herbert, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Brian Steed, Executive Director

R. William Keach II, Director
PUBLICATIONS
contact
Natural Resources Map & Bookstore
1594 W. North Temple
Salt Lake City, UT 84116
telephone: 801-537-3320
toll-free: 1-888-UTAH MAP
website: utahmapstore.com
email: [email protected]

contact
1594 W. North Temple, Suite 3110
Salt Lake City, UT 84116
telephone: 801-537-3300
website: geology.utah.gov
The Miscellaneous Publication series provides non-UGS authors with a high-quality format for documents concerning
Utah geology. Although review comments have been incorporated, this document does not necessarily conform to UGS
technical, editorial, or policy standards. The Utah Department of Natural Resources, Utah Geological Survey, makes no
warranty, expressed or implied, regarding the suitability of this product for a particular use. The Utah Department of Natural
Resources, Utah Geological Survey, shall not be liable under any circumstances for any direct, indirect, special, incidental,
or consequential damages with respect to claims by users of this product.
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Helium Migration................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Helium on the Colorado Plateau............................................................................................................................................. 6
Helium Extraction and Production....................................................................................................................................... 10
Historical Account of the Federal Helium Program .............................................................................................................. 11
Helium Leasing and Regulations in Utah............................................................................................................................. 15
Helium Trends in Utah and Vicinity..................................................................................................................................... 15
PROSPECTIVE HELIUM PLAYS............................................................................................................................................. 21
Application of Data............................................................................................................................................................... 22
Big Flat Area, Grand County................................................................................................................................................ 23
Boundary Butte Area, San Juan County – Navajo Nation.................................................................................................... 24
Bowknot Prospect, Emery County....................................................................................................................................... 26
Clay Basin Field, Daggett County........................................................................................................................................ 27
Grassy Trail Area, Carbon & Emery County........................................................................................................................ 27
Greater Cisco Area, Grand County....................................................................................................................................... 28
Harley Dome Field, Grand County....................................................................................................................................... 29
Lisbon Area, San Juan County.............................................................................................................................................. 30
Salt Wash Area, Grand County............................................................................................................................................. 34
San Arroyo Area, Grand County........................................................................................................................................... 35
Temple Springs Prospect, Emery County............................................................................................................................. 35
Woodside Dome Field, Emery County................................................................................................................................. 36
Wildcat Helium Prospects.................................................................................................................................................... 37
CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................................................................................... 38
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS........................................................................................................................................................... 38
REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................................................ 39
APPENDIX.................................................................................................................................................................................. 44
FIGURES
Figure 1. Helium trends and basin distribution in the contiguous United States and Canada....................................................... 2
Figure 2. Estimated global helium supply vs. demand forecast.................................................................................................... 2
Figure 3. Major helium-bearing natural gas fields in the United States........................................................................................ 3
Figure 4. Area reference map for the BLM-operated crude helium pipeline in the Panhandle-Hugoton gas field complex .
near Amarillo, Texas................................................................................................................................................ 4
Figure 5. Diagrammatic cross section of a helium system............................................................................................................ 5
Figure 6. Generalized helium system model with emphasis on generation and migration........................................................... 6
Figure 7. Typical generation rates for helium in average rocks .................................................................................................... 6
Figure 8. General area and structure map of the Colorado Plateau............................................................................................... 7
Figure 9. Relationship of Colorado Plateau monoclines to faulted basement rock....................................................................... 8
Figure 10. Helium migration models............................................................................................................................................. 9
Figure 11. Natural carbon dioxide gas reservoirs and associated infrastructure reference map.................................................. 10
Figure 12. General area map of the Colorado Plateau with emphasis on basement lineaments and structural geometries........ 11
Figure 13. Graduated symbol map illustrating documented high-helium gas accumulations vs. sample depth throughout the .
Colorado Plateau and Rocky Mountain regions......................................................................................................... 12
Figure 14. Typical block diagram for nitrogen and helium recovery from natural gas............................................................... 12
Figure 15. Image of ExxonMobil’s large-scale Shute Creek gas plant in southwestern Wyoming (top) and IACX’s
small-scale Harley Dome field helium plant in Grand County, Utah (bottom).......................................................... 13
Figure 16. Area reference map for the Lisbon gas processing plant and associated helium-rich fields and infrastructure......... 14
Figure 17. Generalized east-west cross section across the Paradox Basin with emphasis on structure, fluid sources, and
drives for paleofluid flow............................................................................................................................................ 16
Figure 18. Southwest-to-northeast cross section of the Pennsylvanian lithofacies across the Paradox Basin and central .
Colorado Plateau........................................................................................................................................................ 17
Figure 19. Utah oil and gas fields and dominant structural reference map.................................................................................. 18
Figure 20. Generalized stratigraphic column for the Paradox Basin with emphasis on nomenclature and helium-rich gas .
occurrences in relation to hydrocarbon-rich formations............................................................................................ 19
Figure 21. Stratigraphic column for the Harley Dome helium gas field in east-central Utah modeled after the Lansdale
Govt 13 well (API 43-019-30008)............................................................................................................................. 20
Figure 22. High helium gas analysis report from the Lansdale Govt 4 well (API 43-019-30003) sourced from the Jurassic .
Entrada Sandstone reservoir at Harley Dome............................................................................................................ 21
Figure 23. Sample of high helium gas in the Harley Dome field area documented by the U.S. Bureau of Mines..................... 23
Figure 24. Drill stem test from the Temple Springs Unit 1 well (API 43-015-11324) documenting high helium gas under
the San Rafael Desert................................................................................................................................................. 24
Figure 25. Generalized isopach map for the Mississippian Leadville Limestone and associated oil and gas fields................... 25
Figure 26. Generalized structural map for the Four Corners region of the Colorado Plateau with emphasis on proven oil
and gas fields.............................................................................................................................................................. 31
Figure 27. Typical gamma ray-sonic log of the Mississippian Leadville Limestone.................................................................. 32
Figure 28. Gamma ray-sonic log for the Apache Federal #1 well (API 43-037-10047), Lisbon field........................................ 33
PLATE
Plate 1. Helium-rich natural gas fields of Utah and vicinity

RESOURCES IN UTAH
by Tyler J. Wiseman and Marc T. Eckels
ABSTRACT sylvanian Paradox Formation. In some cases, helium-rich

gas has been documented in the gas cap of prolific Paleozoic
For nearly 100 years the naturally occurring noble gas, he- petroleum systems.
lium, has been documented in the gas stream of natural gas
wells in eastern Utah. Global demand for helium is outstrip- Over 400 wells drilled in Utah have been tested and ana-
ping production as proven helium-rich gas fields continue to lyzed for helium with ranges from trace amounts up to
decline and the U.S. government moves to exit from atop its 7.31%, with the highest helium concentrations in Jurassic
dominant position in the global helium industry. This transi- sandstone reservoirs on the crest of the Harley Dome struc-
tion creates opportunity for focused exploration and produc- ture in east-central Utah. Although Utah helium prospects
tion of helium in eastern Utah and the Four Corners region of have been documented since the early 20th century, recent
the Colorado Plateau. renewed interest of several upstream helium exploration
and production companies has brought attention back to the
Helium occurrences in eastern Utah have been influenced helium potential of eastern Utah. With several high-helium
by a combination of mantle and crustal processes. Like a gas plays and natural gas wells with associated helium con-
petroleum system, an effective helium system is governed centrations above the historical 0.30% economic threshold,
by predictable processes that control generation, migration, Utah deserves the consideration of those interested in ex-
and entrapment. Helium migration initiates with the alpha ploring for and producing helium.
decay of uranium and thorium from mineral grains. Recrys-
tallization and diffusion concentrate helium into pore water
and groundwater over tens to hundreds of million years. Mi-
grating volcanogenic and thermogenic gases sweep helium INTRODUCTION
and nitrogen from old pore water. Recrystallization of acidic
gases into solid minerals over long migration distances helps Helium (He) is a colorless, odorless, chemically inert element
to concentrate helium and nitrogen in the gas phase. Thus, of the noble gas family with two stable isotopes: the lighter,
the longer the migration duration, the more nitrogen- and he- rarer primordial helium-3 (3He) and the heavier, more com-
lium-rich the gas. Helium-rich gas migrates through carrier mon radiogenic helium-4 (4He) that has historically been a
beds and can become trapped beneath impermeable seals like byproduct of natural gas production (figure 1) (Anderson,
other natural gases. 1998; Gilfillan and others, 2008). The unique properties of
helium (e.g., inert, non-toxic, lighter-than-air, ultra-cool liq-
Helium-rich gas in Utah is not limited to areas of proven oil uid temperature, and small molecular size) make it an element
and gas production or reservoir rock of a particular age or that can be used in a variety of high-tech commercial, indus-
type. Due to significant helium dilution by methane gener- trial, medical, defense, and research applications as both a
ation, helium is not typically found in basin centers where liquid and a gas (National Research Council, 2010). Demand
most hydrocarbons are produced. In general, Paleozoic rocks for helium is outstripping production (figure 2) and helium
typically have had more time to generate and collect more prices will likely be high and demand strong for the fore-
helium than younger rocks, but this relationship is based on seeable future. A sequence of global helium shortages over
the older (Paleozoic) helium- and nitrogen-rich groundwater the past decade has occurred as the manager of the single
that fills the pore spaces rather than the age of the rock itself. most important depository of crude helium in the world, the
Thus, understanding the hydrodynamics of a prospective he- U.S. government (Pacheco and Ali, 2008), exits the helium
lium play is critical. business. Shortages are also due to fragile overseas supply
lines and known depletion of U.S. helium-bearing natural
In east-central Utah, significantly high helium gas con- gas fields (Bahl, 2019; Brown, 2019), which have prompted
centrations have been found in Triassic-Jurassic reservoirs exploration companies to explore for helium-rich gas outside
along hydrodynamically complex basin-uplift transition ar- of proven natural gas productive areas (plate 1). Such supply
eas and on the margins of proven petroleum fields. Helium- and demand driven exploration activities, coupled with con-
rich gas streams in southeastern Utah have been document- tinuous declines in natural gas prices, challenge the notion
ed in Devonian-Mississippian reservoirs below thick cycles that production of helium is only driven by the demand for
of hydrocarbon-rich shale, salt, and anhydrite of the Penn- natural gas (National Research Council, 2000, 2010).
2 Utah Geological Survey
Figure 1. Helium trends and basin distribution in the contiguous United States and Canada. Graduated symbol map illustrating documented
helium-rich natural gas concentrations vs. sample depth.
Figure 2. Estimated global helium supply vs. demand forecast modified from Bahl (2019). Currently operated by the BLM, the Federal Helium
Reserve was commissioned at the Bush Dome near Amarillo, Texas in 1967 following the 1960 amendments to the Helium Conservation Act
of 1925. The Act enabled the U.S. government to monopolize the helium industry by controlling production, refining, and storage of the gas.
The 3.0% increase in demand from 2016 correlates with the depletion of stored helium in the Federal Helium Reserve, depletion of domestic
helium-rich natural gas fields, subeconomic natural gas prices, and fragile overseas supply lines. According to Bahl (2019) the less dramatic
1.5% demand growth from 2016 is more likely as new, but limited, sources of supply from Eastern Europe ramp up helium production.
Proven and hypothetical helium resources in Utah 3
With low natural gas prices continuing for the foreseeable Since 1917, gas samples from oil and gas wells and natural
future, the high value of helium ($210 average per Mcf for gas pipelines throughout the United States have been col-
grade-A gaseous helium as of federal fiscal year 2018) found lected for the Federal Helium Program by the U.S. Bureau
in the gas stream may offset the economic impact of low of Mines (USBM; now U.S. Bureau of Land Management
natural gas prices and high operational cost (U.S. Geological [BLM]) in a continuing search for helium occurrences.
Survey, 2019, 2020). Therefore, the helium content of a gas This responsibility was charged to the USBM for ensuring
stream can be significant. Historically, a volume concentra- a continued supply of helium to meet essential government
tion of helium found in a gas stream in excess of 0.30 mol% needs and future demands (Rogers, 1921). In the 1930s, the
(hereafter referred to as %) has been considered a potential federal government monopolized the production of helium
helium resource (figure 1). Recent work by Grynia and Grif- after securing production facilities in eastern Colorado,
fin (2016) suggests that a gas stream helium concentration Kansas, and Texas. Since 1962, the BLM has maintained
greater than 0.50% is necessary for economic production the only significant long-term, large-scale storage facil-
outside of federal helium pipeline access. Concentrations in ity and pipeline for crude helium in the world within the
excess of 7.0% He are significantly rare yet have been discov- Panhandle-Hugoton gas field complex spanning southwest
ered and documented in the gas stream of wells drilled on the Kansas, northwest Oklahoma, and the panhandle of Texas
northwestern flank of the Uncompahgre uplift on the Harley (figures 3 and 4) (National Research Council, 2000, 2010;
Dome structure located in east-central Utah (plate 1). Anderson, 2017).
Figure 3. Major helium-bearing natural gas fields in the United States. Modified from Grynia and Griffin (2016).
Figure 4. Area reference map for the Panhandle-Hugoton gas field complex, which spans the Texas and Oklahoma panhandle and
stretches into central Kansas. Emphasis is on infrastructure associated with the BLM’s Federal Helium Program as of May 5, 2020. At the
time of this report, the Cliffside (Bush Dome) depleted gas reservoir is the only long-term and large-scale crude helium storage facility
in the world. Modified from the BLM’s Federal Helium Program website: https://www.blm.gov/programs/energy-and-minerals/helium/
federal-helium-operations.
Helium Migration which means it can diffuse and move more easily than other
natural gases (Sugisaki, 1987). This requires a more effec-
Although helium is the second-most abundant element in the tive seal to trap helium in a reservoir than is required for hy-
universe, it is extremely rare on Earth. Our atmosphere con- drocarbons (Yurkowski, 2016). The Colorado Plateau is fa-
tains ~5 ppm (Prinzhofer, 2013), and even though helium is vorable for occurrence of high-helium gas due to the old age
present in most natural gas reservoirs, most hydrocarbon gas- of the rocks, active hydrodynamics to help helium migrate
es (natural gases) have low helium concentrations (Yurkows- to gas, recent tectonic reactivation that may aid helium re-
ki, 2016). Some natural gases have high helium concentra- lease by mineral recrystallization and faster diffusion, thick
tions, and these are potential economic resources (figure 1). deposits of salt and bedded anhydrite, and a large number of
potential migration pathways and trapping geometries (fig-
Like a petroleum system, helium occurrence in natural gas is ures 8 and 9) (Rogers, 1921; Casey, 1983; Anderson, 2007;
governed by predictable processes of generation, migration, Brown, 2010, 2019). In certain areas near the Four Corners of
and entrapment. The helium system differs from the petro- the Colorado Plateau mantle degassing may concentrate high
leum system in terms of source rock, and hydrodynamics are helium gas (Brown, 2010).
of much greater importance (figures 5 and 6) (Brown, 2010;
Prinzhofer, 2013). Helium is generated from all rocks at a Most helium on Earth is radiogenic (Zartman and others,
slow rate (Keevil, 1940, 1943), and generation of economic 1961), although a small fraction may be of primordial origin
quantities of helium typically requires tens to hundreds of (Ballentine and Burnard, 2002). Most of Earth’s helium-3
million years (figure 7) (Brown, 2010). Helium is roughly (3He) is primordial, and it comes from the mantle (Anderson,
half the size of a methane molecule and the lightest rare gas, 1998, 2007). Gases with unusually high 3He/4He ratios typi-
Figure 5. Diagrammatic cross section of a generalized helium system highlighting potential source rocks, modes of migration, and an
effective conventional trap. In general, helium will have had more time to accumulate economic concentrations in older rocks, however,
the age of the rock itself is trivial compared to the age of the pore water. Typical generation rates are low for all rocks, especially in higher
porosity sandstones. Old (Paleozoic-age) shales have the highest potential to be helium source rocks, followed by granitic basement rock.
Their higher than average uranium and thorium content and low porosity favor a higher rate of helium generation. Regardless of source
rock, large rock volumes, favorable hydrodynamics, and long geological time is required to generate economic amounts of helium. Helium
fractionates into the gas phase easier in shallow, cooler, and underpressured reservoirs with higher salinity formation water.
cally have a lower total helium concentration below that which and sandstones can promote significant helium generation,
is considered economic. Thus, most helium-3 is produced but clean limestones, dolomites, and sandstones are typically
along with helium-4 (4He) (Ballentine and Burnard, 2002). low in radioactive material (Bell and others, 1940; Swanson,
1960), and are consequently low helium generators (figure
Helium exploration means exploring for economic concen- 7). As U and Th decay to lead (Pb), each alpha particle pro-
trations of radiogenic helium in natural gas. Generation of duced becomes a stable helium atom (Keevil, 1943; Ward and
radiogenic helium-4 occurs in the subsurface over significant Pierce, 1973; Ballentine and Burnard, 2002):
geological time as the alpha decay product of uranium (U)
238U → (8)4He + 206Pb
and thorium (Th). Typical rocks enriched in uranium and
thorium include granites; other alkaline crystalline basement 235U → (7)4He + 207Pb
rocks; mudrocks, specifically black shales with a predominant 232Th
humic component; arkoses; and granite wash (Rogers, 1921; → (6)4He + 208Pb
Bell and others, 1940; Keevil, 1943; Swanson, 1960; Zartman Long helium generation duration and large rock volumes are
and others, 1961; Brown, 2010; Craddock and others, 2017). necessary to generate potentially economic quantities of heli-
The source rocks with the largest potential for helium genera- um, regardless of the type of helium source rock. Typically, Pa-
tion are crystalline basement rocks, including granites, and leozoic rocks are more likely to generate and accumulate eco-
old (Paleozoic) mudrocks, and granite washes (figure 5). Im- nomic amounts of helium compared to younger rocks because
purities from radioactive mineral grains in dirty carbonates of the long generation rates for helium (figure 7). Porosity and
Figure 6. Generalized helium system modified from Brown (2010). Figure 7. Typical generation rates for helium in average rocks
Radiogenic helium-4 (4He) is generated in solid mineral grains modified from Brown (2010). Black “hot” shales can contain
enriched in uranium (U) and thorium (Th) and released through significantly higher concentrations of uranium than other typical
alpha decay. Mineral recrystallization and diffusion transfers rock types (~8x higher than average shale), which can make them
helium into pore water where it concentrates given sufficient time potential helium source rocks given a large rock volume and
and a large source rock volume. Helium will partition from water significant geological time. Average shales and granites have a
to a gas at initial contact. This could include migrating gas that nearly linear generation rate vs. time, whereas average carbonates
sweeps helium from old pore water, or helium-rich water migrating and sandstones require significantly more time to generate the
via advection that contacts trapped gas. Once incorporated into same amount of helium in the subsurface. This graph from Brown
the gas phase, helium will migrate updip through carrier beds and (2010) does not imply that unconventional shale plays should
accumulate beneath effective trapping mechanisms the same way target or expect helium to be a major component of the gas stream
as conventional natural gas. because the hydrocarbon gases dilute helium to subeconomic
levels. Similarly, many of the shale plays in the United States are
water saturation controls on helium concentration may also too young to have generated significant concentrations of helium.
favor older source rocks because helium concentrates more Under the right conditions, some sedimentary and basement rocks
may have a similar helium source potential.
effectively in less water where total porosity is low (Brown,
2010). For accumulation of economic amounts of helium, the
age of the host rock is less important than the complex accu- and diffusion or becomes entrained within migrating ground-
mulation history and age of the old (Paleozoic), helium-charged water via advection. Given sufficient time and large enough
water interacting with a gas phase (Zartman and others, 1961; source rock volumes helium can become concentrated in the
Brown, 2010). More helium will partition to gas in shallow, water (figure 10, A). (3) As soon as the helium-enriched water
underpressured reservoirs rather than deep reservoirs (Brown, encounters a gas, either through migrating gas and stagnant
2010, 2019). Higher salinity and cooler temperatures also pro- helium-rich pore water or migrating helium-rich groundwater
mote helium gas phase partitioning (Sugisaki, 1987, Brown, and trapped gas (figure 10, B), helium will partition out of the
2010; Yurkowski, 2016). Thus, younger (Mesozoic) reservoirs liquid and into the gas. (4) Like conventional natural gas, the
may also accumulate economic amounts of helium through gas helium-bearing gas migrates through carrier beds and perme-
migration given a favorable hydrodynamic system and effec- able pathways until trapped by conventional mechanisms (Bal-
tive shallow trapping mechanism. lentine and Burnard, 2002; Brown, 2010; Ellis, 2019).
Distribution of helium-rich gas accumulations is the result of Helium on the Colorado Plateau
a four-step process as described by Brown (2010). (1) Through
the alpha decay of uranium and thorium, helium is initially re- Non-hydrocarbon gases on the Colorado Plateau have been
leased from the mineral grains within which it was generated extensively researched (e.g., Dane, 1935; Zartman and oth-
(figure 6). (2) Following initial creation, helium transfers to and ers, 1961; Picard and Holland, 1962; Cappa and Rice, 1995;
accumulates within pore water by mineral recrystallization Allis and others, 2001, 2003; Rauzi, 2003; Broadhead, 2005;
Figure 8. General area and structural contour map of Cretaceous age rocks on the Colorado Plateau. Modeled after Shoemaker (1955).
Figure 9. Experimental simulation of the relationship of monoclines to faulted basement rock produced by compressional end-loading.
Modified from Davis and Bump (2009). Typical Laramide-style tectonics on the Colorado Plateau produced steep-sided fault-propagation
folds which resulted in multiple “uplifts” with a relatively gentle slope on one limb while the other limb underwent severe deformation in
both the basement and the sedimentary layers above.
Gilfillan, 2006; Gilfillan and others, 2008; Pacheco and Ali, Laramide-induced magmatism (e.g., mantle degassing, diagen-
2008; Heath and others, 2009; Brown, 2010; Craddock and esis, and thermal decomposition of carbonate rock by contact
others, 2017; Halford, 2018). Many authors note a strong and regional metamorphism), and/or the product of organic
helium to nitrogen (N2) correlation. Compared to helium, processes, such as hydrocarbon maturation or biodegradation
nitrogen may have many additional organic and inorganic of organic matter, associated with the depositional environ-
contributing sources including: the atmosphere, meteoric ment (Chamberlin, 1908; Picard and Holland, 1962; Cappa
water, ammonium released from clays by cation exchange and Rice, 1995; Jenden and Kaplan, 1989; Gilfillan and oth-
with formation water, terrestrial coal, organic marine, and ers 2008; Heath and others, 2009; Brown, 2010 ; Ellis, 2019).
metasedimentary settings, as well as from nitrogen found Acidic gases found at depth within the central Colorado Pla-
in weathered igneous rock (Chamberlin, 1908; Zartman and teau have been largely generated by bacterial and thermal sul-
others, 1961; Holloway and Dahlgren, 2002; Brown, 2017, fate reduction (TSR) associated with maximum burial during
2019). Some nitrogen-rich gases may have a deep-crustal, the Late Cretaceous and early Tertiary in the Paradox Basin
igneous and/or metasedimentary origin (Jenden and Kaplan, (Nuccio and Condon, 1996; Seneshen and others, 2010). TSR
1989). In contrast, Holloway and Dahlgren (2002) discuss a can effectively destroy or significantly decrease hydrocarbon
significant increase in nitrogen concentration from granites concentrations through chemical reaction (Ellis, 2019). The
to sedimentary rocks, fundamentally due to large accumula- high concentrations of CO2 in the gas stream of wells drilled
tions of hydrocarbons. into the Mississippian Leadville Limestone reservoir near
more recent volcanic intrusions may favor a volcanic origin by
The abundant carbon dioxide (CO2) gas found on and around thermal decomposition of carbonate rock rather than a primary
the Colorado Plateau (figure 11) and Rocky Mountain re- mantle source (Brown, 2010), although mantle degassing may
gions (Allis and others, 2001, 2003; Gilfillan, 2006; Gilfillan be equally significant in certain areas around the Four Corners
and others, 2008; Heath and others, 2009; Toner and others, (Gilfillan, 2006; Craddock and others, 2017).
2019), specifically within Paleozoic reservoirs (Picard and
Holland, 1962; Cappa and Rice, 1995), may originate from Laramide-age upwarps, basement-involved monoclines, and
multiple sources including: Precambrian basement, inorganic laccolithic intrusions are defining characteristics of southeast-
ern Utah and much of the Colorado Plateau (figure 8) (Conley

and Giardina, 1979; Baars and Stevenson, 1981; Karlstrom and
Humphreys, 1998; Davis and Bump, 2009). The relationship of
Laramide-style monoclines to faulted basement rock (figure 9)
not only created multiple avenues for helium to migrate along
fracture planes, but also deformed the upper section of basement
so severely that the helium retained in the mineral grains (Kee-
vil, 1941; Zartman and others, 1961) was likely expelled. Reju-
venations of tectonic activity along major structures (figure 12)
influenced local and regional episodes of rapid uplift and erosion
(Baars, 1966; Condon, 1995, 1997), which caused changes in
reservoir pressure. As pressure dropped, gas expanded. Helium-
rich gas on the Colorado Plateau reaches its peak concentration
at a depth of ~1500 feet and decreases with increasing depth
(Brown, 2010). Rather than suggesting that high-helium gas is
correlated with age of the reservoir rock, Brown (2010) suggests
that the observed age effect is related to the age of the pore water
at the time of gas expansion and migration.
Short- and long-distance migration of both thermogenic and

volcanogenic gases on the Colorado Plateau has charged
many hydrocarbon reservoirs of different ages. Spillage from
conventional traps likely further enabled the migration, com-
mingling, and dilution of gases from distant source areas
(Jenden and Kaplan, 1989; Chidsey, 2016a). Thermogenic
gases migrating from source areas updip from adjacent hy-
drocarbon productive basins likely swept helium-bearing for-
mations on their way to structural traps in Devonian-Jurassic
reservoirs located along basin-uplift transition areas of east-
ern and southeastern Utah, respectively (plate 1). Although
sampling bias may be significant, the predominant factor for
negligible concentrations of helium found in Cretaceous-Eo-
cene hydrocarbon productive basin centers throughout east-
ern Utah and the Colorado Plateau region is not the young age
of the reservoir, but dilution of helium by methane generation
in nearby hydrocarbon source rocks (figure 13) (Prinzhofer
and Battani, 2003; Whidden and others, 2014).
According to Brown (2010), the most likely scenario for non-

flammable, helium-rich gas in southeastern Utah and the
Four Corners region of the Colorado Plateau is an original
carbon dioxide gas that was dominated by nitrogen and he-
lium. Generated either from degassing of the mantle or decar-
Figure 10. Typical helium migration models from Brown (2010).
Model (A) illustrates that as gas migrates through a water-saturated bonation from local hydrocarbon and carbonate source rocks
reservoir that has accumulated high helium concentrations from the (Zartman and others, 1961), CO2-rich gas migrated updip and
surrounding rocks it strips the helium from the immobile water. This through migration pathways just like other natural gases. As
type of model has been suggested to account for the high-helium CO2-rich gas migrates it picks up dissolved helium (figure
gas found in Central Kansas. Alternatively, model (B) shows how 10, C), nitrogen, and methane in pore water, while fractions
a stationary gas accumulation can gain helium by interacting with of the CO2 simultaneously dissolve into the water where they
moving water with a high dissolved helium content. The helium- chemically react and are incorporated into solid minerals
rich gas found in the Panhandle-Hugoton gas complex of Texas, such as carbonates and sulfides (Brown, 2010). The farther
Oklahoma, and Kansas demonstrates this type of modeling. Model (C)
CO2 gas migrates from its source, or the greater the volume
demonstrates how a carbon dioxide-rich gas strips helium and other
gases dissolved in pore water as it migrates. As migration continues, of the carrier bed, the less CO2 is retained in the gas phase.
the total gas volume decreases as carbon dioxide dissolves into pore This can result in a predominantly nitrogen-rich gas with a
water and reacts with minerals, leaving a gas rich in inert gases, and significant helium component, and only minor concentrations
trace hydrocarbons. This model best represents the occurrence of of hydrocarbon and acidic gases remain after long-distance
high-helium gas found throughout the Colorado Plateau. migration (Cappa and Rice, 1995; Brown, 2010).
Figure 11. Map showing natural carbon dioxide gas reservoirs and associated infrastructure from the Colorado Plateau and Rocky
Mountain provinces, USA. From Gilfillan and others (2008).
Helium Extraction and Production Griffin, 2016). PSA units utilize high pressures and ambient
temperatures, rather than low temperatures, to separate the
At the time of this publication, only two gas processing plants helium from the gas stream; this allows helium exploration
have transported economic amounts of helium in Utah: (1) and production companies to pursue smaller, overlooked or
the 60 MMcfd Lisbon gas plant in San Juan County, and (2) bypassed helium-rich gas fields where cryogenic processing
the 30 MMcfd Harley Dome plant in Grand County (plate 1). is uneconomic and pipeline access is restricted or non-exis-
Helium recovery from a natural gas stream typically involves tent. For this type of helium recovery unit, gas stream helium
a combination of acid gas removal, dehydration, methane concentrations of 0.50% or more are generally required to be
liquefaction, and nitrogen rejection (figure 14) (Parker and economic (Grynia and Griffin, 2016). The recovery and sale
others, 2011; Grynia and Griffin, 2016). Large-scale helium of helium gas at the Harley Dome plant from 2013 to 2018 by
extraction and grade-A purification units (figure 15, top) are IACX Energy was made possible by the installation of a he-
capital-intensive and require sufficiently large volumes of lium PSA on the southern edge of the field (figure 15, bottom).
helium to remain economic (Anderson, 2017). Small-scale,
non-cryogenic helium recovery operations employ pressure Initially operated by Union Oil/UNOCAL and now Paradox
swing adsorption (PSA) units to economically extract up to Upstream, LLC., the Lisbon Plant (figure 16) came on-line in
12 MMcfd of pure 99.995% He from natural gas (Grynia and 1967 with substantial gas processing improvements, includ-
Figure 12. General location of the Colorado Plateau with emphasis on the relationship to major orthogonal set of basement lineaments
and structural geometries from Baars and Stevenson (1981). Northwest-southeast lineaments are right-lateral, northeast-southwest
lineaments are left-lateral.
ing the addition of a cryogenic plant and helium-recovery unit ily in the helium play fairways of the Colorado Plateau and
(HRU), in 1993 following a helium contract with the USBM Rocky Mountain region (U.S. Geological Survey, 2020). With
and amendments to the unit agreement to include helium as the development of portable, small-scale, non-cryogenic PSA
a producible gas component (Utah Trust Lands Administra- helium recovery equipment, exploitation of helium by both
tion, 2019). The Lisbon plant processed, sold, and transported large and small helium producers is now possible in areas
helium extracted from surrounding oil and gas fields by truck that would have otherwise been condemned. Processing of
consistently from April 1994 to February 2011 when helium helium can be done on location and is typically transported
extraction was no longer economic, and the HRU was shut to market as a liquid using multilayer insulated bulk liquid
down. During those 17 years, the Lisbon gas plant produced tankers or by tube trailers in its gaseous state (figure 15, bot-
15,263,477 lbs. of helium as well as sulfur, propane, butane, tom) (Reisch, 2017).
ethane, and gasoline in varying amounts (Utah Division of
Oil, Gas and Mining, 2020). Early 2020 press releases from Historical Account of the Federal Helium Program
Paradox Resources, LLC indicate that the Lisbon plant, and
its associated HRU, is back online and selling purified helium For strategic purposes, the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 re-
to market. served all helium contained in natural gas fields on federal
lands to the U.S. government (Moore, 1976). The Helium
High helium market prices coupled with advances in helium- Act, also known as the Helium Conservation Act (HCA), of
rich natural gas extraction and purification technology will 1925 transferred all government-related helium activities to
likely promote an increase in exploration of proven and hy- the USBM, enabling the federal government to dominate the
pothetical helium plays throughout the United States, primar- helium market by controlling the production and refining of
Figure 13. Graduated symbol map illustrating documented high-helium gas accumulations vs. sample depth throughout the Colorado
Plateau and Rocky Mountain regions. The larger the diameter of the circle, the higher helium concentration found in the sample. Warm
colors represent deeper sample depths. Note that on the Colorado Plateau helium gas tends to accumulate near the margins of major
petroleum systems. Significantly high helium gas seems to be found in shallow (< 2000 ft.) structural traps along basin-uplift transitional
areas. Most of the helium sampled on the Colorado Plateau has been from Devonian and Mississippian reservoirs.
Figure 14. Typical block diagram for nitrogen rejection and helium recovery from Mokhatab and others (2019). For most medium- to large-
scale midstream helium operations a cryogenic plant is complimentary to the larger gas processing plant. Feed gas to the nitrogen-rejection
unit (NRU) is the residue gas from the methane liquefaction (NGL) recovery unit and will typically contain ~25% N2 and 0.5%−1.0% He,
depending on the original gas stream concentration. The NRU operates at -245°F and 350 psig. The crude helium and nitrogen gas mixture
is then chilled to -315°F, which effectively liquefies the nitrogen and produces a helium-rich gas stream with ~90% purity and a recovery level
of 99%. Further helium purification units comprised of membrane and adsorption-based processes can significantly upgrade the helium to
grade-A purity (grade 5, “five-nines,” or 99.999% purity).
http://deq.wyoming.gov/isd/application-permits/resources/labarge-carbon-capture-project/
https://www.iacx.com/helium-projects/
Figure 15. (Top) Image from Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality shows an aerial view of ExxonMobil’s Shute Creek gas plant
in the Riley Ridge area of southwestern Wyoming. At a depth of over 15,000 feet and with average gas compositions of 66% CO2, 21%
CH4, 7.0% N2, 5.0% H2S, and 0.6% He, the LaBarge gas field project primarily captures carbon dioxide for enhanced oil recovery, but also
separates methane and refines helium for sale. (Bottom) Image showing IACX’s Harley Dome field helium plant in Grand County, Utah,
during operations from 2013 to 2018. IACX utilized a proprietary, non-cryogenic helium recovery unit to economically extract and purify
helium from the helium-rich (over 7.0% He) natural gas stream, sourced from the Jurassic Entrada Sandstone at less than 1000 feet, to over
99% purity and with minimal helium loss.
Figure 16. The Lisbon gas plant processes pure helium from over 150 wells over ~98,000 net acres in the Paradox Basin. The gas processing
plant is made up of a 60 MMcfd treating plant with a 45 MMcfd cryogenic plant and a 7500 bpd fractionation train. The helium recovery
unit (HRU) is capable of 500 Mcfd at 90% recovery and purification of “five-nines” (99.999% He). The Lisbon plant is the only plant in the
region capable of processing high nitrogen and carbon dioxide gas with helium purification and liquefaction capabilities. Map from Paradox
Resources company website.
the gas. Following a significant loan from the U.S. Treasury commensurate with federal mineral acreage when in produc-
in 1960, amendments to the 1925 HCA enabled the federal tion, meaning that a percentage of all helium produced is con-
government to develop Federal Helium Reserve (FHR) stor- sidered federal helium (BLM – Federal Leased Lands Pro-
age capabilities and a nearly 450-mile helium pipeline con- gram). State-owned minerals were never subject to a federal
necting central Kansas and Panhandle-Hugoton gas fields helium sales contract. As the landowner of over 4.3 million
with the Cliffside (Bush Dome) depleted natural gas reservoir mineral acres in Utah, the Utah School and Institutional Trust
near Amarillo, Texas (figures 3 and 4) (National Research Lands Administration (SITLA) includes helium in its current
Council, 2000). About 1975, the federal government ended oil and gas lease agreement and maintains the right to enter
its stockpiling of helium, terminated their existing purchase “other business arrangements” (OBAs) with potential lessees.
agreements, and opened the Bush Dome storage reservoir for
private helium storage (Massol and Rifaat, 2018). Except for the 6,038.76-acre Lisbon (Mississippian) federal
unit in San Juan County, currently operated by Paradox Up-
Amid a large $1.4 billion and growing debt to the U.S. Trea- stream, LLC. (figure 16), helium does not appear to be con-
sury, the Helium Privatization Act of 1996 ordered the BLM sidered a “unitized substance” under the current BLM unit
to cease upgrading, refining, and marketing helium, as well lease agreement. Special provisions and amendments to the
as to liquidate all but 0.6 Bcf of the FHR by January 1, 2015 federal unit agreement require BLM approval and can be ob-
(National Research Council, 2000; Hamak, 2017; Massol and tained similar to a federal helium lease.
Rifaat, 2018). In 2013, the Federal Helium Program made a
final recompense to the U.S. Treasury. To mitigate a helium Although helium is an inert gas that is largely found within a
shortage and industry monopolization, the Helium Steward- nitrogen-rich, non-flammable gas stream, minor amounts of
ship Act (HSA) of 2013 mandated the federal helium stored in acidic gas and hydrocarbons are commingled within the gas.
the Bush Dome reservoir at Cliffside to be incrementally sold Methane in small concentrations (< 15% CH4) may provide
at public auction until 3.0 Bcf remained in storage. The HSA an upside in helium exploration and production because it can
also extended commercial operations of the FHR until Sep- be used on location for power generation. A higher methane
tember 30, 2021 (Anderson, 2017; Hamak, 2017). In August concentration would require pipelines, rights-of-way, and
of 2018, the BLM conducted its fifth and final auction of the connections to market the excess methane gas. Carbon diox-
FHR (U.S. Geological Survey, 2019). In May 2018, the U.S. ide and hydrogen sulfide are common but minor components
Geological Survey (USGS) included helium in a published to a helium-rich gas stream and, following acid gas removal,
report documenting the 35 most critical minerals to the na- are typically reinjected down the well annulus.
tion’s security and economic prosperity (Office of the Fed-
eral Register, 2018; U.S. Geological Survey, 2019, 2020). In A few of the helium plays in Utah are within or near envi-
August 2019, NAH Utah LLC, an affiliate of Canadian firm ronmentally sensitive areas and may have little to no road
North American Helium, submitted applications to the BLM access. Explorationists must be aware that obtaining BLM or
for permits to drill four remote helium test wells in Devonian private right-of-way access to certain helium prospects may
and Mississippian reservoirs below the San Rafael Desert be difficult.
area in Emery County, Utah (plate 1) (Rocky Mountain Oil
Journal, 2019). Helium Trends in Utah and Vicinity
Helium Leasing and Regulations in Utah The evolution of the western Cordillera in eastern Utah pro-
duced a thick, stable (Davis and Bump, 2009), relatively un-
State of Utah oil and gas leases have always included helium deformed environment with enough of the necessary ingredi-
gas among the leased substances. Historically, federal oil and ents to generate and accumulate economic concentrations of
gas leases have not. Helium produced from federal acreage is helium in the subsurface (figure 13). Complex hydrodynamic
reserved for the federal government and requires a helium lease, (figure 17), thermogenic, and volcanogenic processes and
which can be obtained through the BLM field office in Ama- structural geometries (figure 18) within Paleozoic and Me-
rillo, Texas. Currently, the BLM requires 10% lessor royalty for sozoic formations at depth contribute greatly to the distribu-
gross sales of liquid helium and 12.5% royalty for gross sales tion and accumulation of helium in the subsurface (Zartman
of crude to gaseous helium with no post-production expenses. and others, 1961; Brown, 2010). Well-documented regional
zones of weakness extending deep into fractured basement
The Helium Extraction Act of 2017 amended the Mineral rock (figure 9) may provide pathways for helium microseep-
Leasing Act of 1920 to include helium in a federal oil and age to the surface (Seneshen and others, 2010; Craddock and
gas lease (H.R. 3279 – Helium Extraction Act of 2017). The others, 2017; Seneshen, 2018). Given tens to hundreds of mil-
purpose of the bill was to ensure that extraction of helium lion years, a source charge, old sediment with old pore water,
from gas produced under a federal mineral lease would also long migration distance, an effective seal, and trap integrity,
maintain the lease as if the helium were oil or gas (Anderson, economic amounts of helium can be captured in reservoir
2017; Reisch, 2017). Although privately-owned minerals do rocks sealed by impermeable salt layers or in relatively shal-
not need a helium contract with the BLM, private or fee lands low structural traps (figure 5).
Figure 17. Generalized cross section of fluid sources and drives for paleofluid flow in the Paradox Basin. Modified from Barton and
others (2018).
Helium-rich gas is not limited to areas of proven oil and by pre-Laramide intermittent episodes of uplift with differ-
gas production (figure 19) or reservoir rocks of a particular ential episodes of folding in Pennsylvanian time (Bartsch-
type or age (see appendix). In eastern Utah, helium has been Winkler and others, 1990), help to capture the migrating gas.
predominantly documented within the northwest-trending Cycles of Pennsylvanian Paradox Formation salt and bedded
Paradox Basin or along its margins (figure 13). Helium- anhydrite create an effective seal (figure 18).
bearing geologic units (figure 20) within the basin consist of
Devonian through Permian calcareous sandstones, shales, In far southeastern Utah, the Boundary Butte field area on
and sandy carbonates below multiple layers of salt and an- the Four Corners Platform has significant helium shows from
hydrite of the Pennsylvanian Paradox Formation (figure 18). samples taken within low-pressure, hydrodynamically com-
High-helium gas is well documented in east-central Utah plex Pennsylvanian clastic reservoirs trapped between layers
along the northeast margin of the Paradox Basin from shal- of Paradox salt. In east-central Utah and western Colorado, in-
low structural traps in underpressured Jurassic reservoirs terfingering arkosic sandstone and shale beds of the Permian
(figure 21). Shallow traps are important in helium explo- Cutler Group and stratigraphically higher Mesozoic reservoirs
ration because helium partitions into gas more efficiently along the western and southwestern flank of the Uncompahgre
at cooler temperatures found at shallow depths. Brines or uplift have recorded similar helium concentrations, including
higher salinity pore and groundwater may also aid in helium the significant helium shows at Harley Dome (plate 1).
partitioning into a gas via groundwater migration (figure
17) (Brown, 2010). Helium has not been found west of the Wasatch Plateau in cen-
tral Utah (figure 8), which locally recorded the eastern extent
Non-flammable, helium-rich gas concentrations have been of the Sevier thrust belt and the more recent eastern margin of
documented in the San Rafael Desert, on the eastern flank of the Basin and Range (Wood and Chidsey, 2015). Due largely
the basement-involved San Rafael Swell in central Utah (fig- to dilution from methane generation, helium concentrations are
ure 8), in shaly dolomite beds of the Upper Devonian Elbert negligible within young hydrocarbon productive basins such
Formation (figure 20). High-helium gas has also been found as the Paleogene Uinta and Piceance Basins of northeastern
in the overlying carbonate rock of the Mississippian Lead- Utah and northwestern Colorado, respectively (figure 8). Trace
ville Limestone. Combination trapping geometries, formed amounts of helium are common in natural gas wells penetrat-
Figure 18. Southwest-to-northeast cross section of the Pennsylvanian lithofacies of the Paradox Basin modified from Chidsey (2016b) after
Baars and Stevenson (1981). The structurally complex evaporative basin consists of a series of depositional cycles of siliciclastic mudstones
and evaporites. Economic occurrences of helium have been recorded in proximal basin fill composed of arkosic sandstone and gravel of the
Permian Cutler Formation sourced from granite wash along the flanks of the Uncompahgre uplift, where the Cutler interfingers with salt
and anhydrite of the Pennsylvanian Paradox Formation. Significant helium shows are common in deeper calcareous shales, sandstones,
and carbonate reservoirs of the Devonian Elbert Formation and Mississippian Leadville Limestone as well as within clastic zones of the
Pennsylvanian Paradox Formation.
ing Paleozoic reservoirs with a higher Btu (British thermal unit) on the crest of the Harley Dome structure from Jurassic
content. This relationship is likely associated with helium dilu- reservoirs at depths around 1000 feet. Other significant he-
tion from methane generation within hydrocarbon-rich zones of lium shows (see appendix) have come from the relatively
nearby petroleum source rocks (figure 13). Excessively higher unexplored nitrogen-rich gases of Devonian-Mississippian
percentage helium-rich gas (0.5%–7.0% He) is typically found carbonate and sandstone reservoirs primarily from the
in association with wells in which nitrogen and carbon dioxide northern Paradox Basin and on the northern edge of the
are the dominant gas constituents and are separated from oil- Four Corners platform in far southeastern Utah (plate 1).
and natural gas-producing formations by impermeable bound- Acidic and hydrocarbon-rich gases are commingled with
aries. Nitrogen-rich gases with a significant helium concentra- high-helium gas in the Lisbon area near the center of the
tion are typically located at the margins of proven petroleum Paradox Basin. Since typical natural gas sampling tech-
fields, whereas carbon dioxide-rich gases are commonly found niques do not measure for helium in the analysis, most
near mid-Cenozoic volcanic intrusions (figure 8) at depths be- wells that have been drilled in prospective helium play
low hydrocarbon-rich source rocks. Both nitrogen- and carbon fairways were never tested specifically for helium (Grynia
dioxide-rich gas streams seem to cluster near basement-cored and Griffin, 2016). Although some of these resources have
faults and on basin-uplift transitional areas. been documented since the early 20th century, recently
renewed economic interest on the part of several helium
Helium shows in Utah range from negligible trace amounts exploration and production companies has brought atten-
up to 7.31% He (figure 22), with the highest concentrations tion back to Utah’s helium potential.
Figure 19. Reference map illustrates the distribution of oil and gas fields and dominant structural elements specific to Utah. Modified
from Wood and Chidsey (2015). Note that this map depicts the Harley Dome gas field in far east-central Utah as a carbon dioxide
(CO2) field. Gas compositions indicate that CO2 found at Harley Dome is comparatively minor but increases to the north-northeast
within the Bar X and San Arroyo gas fields that trend into Colorado.
Figure 20. Generalized stratigraphic column for eastern Utah and the central Colorado Plateau showing evidence for an effective
helium system in both Mesozoic and Paleozoic strata. Helium source rocks are thought to be predominantly Paleozoic sedimentary
rocks (e.g., Cambrian-Devonian dirty sandstones and shales) and the Precambrian basement with additional input from younger
U- and Th-rich sediments. Degassing from the mantle may not play as large of a role here as in other areas of the Colorado Plateau
(e.g., northeastern Arizona). Carbon dioxide may act as a carrier gas for helium in the subsurface. Modified from Whidden and others
(2014) after Conley and Giardina (1979).
Figure 21. Northeastern Grand County, Utah, stratigraphic column modified from Willis (1994). Formation thickness from Willis
(1994) is averaged over the area, whereas depth from surface was taken from the UDOGM well file drilling report from Daymon D.
Gililland’s Lansdale Govt 13 well (API 43-019-30008), SENE section 4, T. 19 S., R. 25 E. (SLB&M), in Grand County, Utah. Note that
the Jurassic Entrada Sandstone is generally clean sand and a good carrier bed for fluids. Where present, the overlying dense shale
beds of the Summerville Formation and Tidwell Member of the Morrison Formation provide an effective seal to helium-rich gases at
Harley Dome. The uranium-bearing Salt Wash Member of the Morrison contains more channel sandstones with interbedded shales
that act as leaky seals to migrating fluids.
Figure 22. Gas analysis report from the Jurassic Entrada Sandstone reservoir penetrated by the Lansdale Govt 4 well (API 43-019-
30003) located atop the Harley Dome structure in Grand County, Utah. This 1968 gas analysis was taken from the public well file
report from the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (UDOGM).
PROSPECTIVE HELIUM PLAYS The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) defines
Mcf as the volume of one thousand standard cubic feet of
The following sections describe potential helium plays in gas. Utah Administrative Code R746-320-1 4.c defines a le-
Utah. Results are based on the compilation of a verifiable da- gal standard foot of gas as the volume of gas that occupies
tabase of economic helium analyses from 93 wells with he- one cubic foot at a temperature of 60 degrees Fahrenheit and
lium concentrations at or above 0.30% located throughout 12 at absolute pressure. The Federal Helium Program (FHP)
proven and developed natural gas field areas and five helium- defines a standard cubic foot (scf) as the volume of gas-
prospective play areas (see appendix). Ten-digit API numbers eous helium occupying one cubic foot at a pressure of 14.65
were used in this report for wells with ambiguous well names. pounds per square inch absolute (psia) and a temperature of
60 degrees Fahrenheit (BLM − Federal Helium Operations).
Like a petroleum system, the terms “play” and “play fair- Other volumetric measurements used in the following sec-
way” used throughout this report represent a geographic area tions include: MMcf (one million cubic feet of gas), MMcfd
defined during the exploration phase that has the combined (one million cubic feet of gas per day), Bcf (one billion cu-
source, seal, and reservoir components necessary for helium bic feet of gas), bpd (barrels of oil equivalent per day), and
to accumulate in the subsurface. The play fairway typically MMbbls (one million barrels of oil). Traditionally, 42 U.S.
consists of a group of geologically related prospects defined gallons equal one barrel of oil. Pressure measurements for
by a general area. A play can be proven or hypothetical, but this paper have been reported in psi (pounds of force per
the prospect is defined independently by an effective reser- square inch of area). The FHP has historically used psia
voir, source charge, and trap integrity evaluated by drilling a (pressure measured relative to a full vacuum) when refer-
well (Otis and Schneidermann, 1997). ring to laboratory measurements and psig (gauge pressure)
at the wellhead in relation to atmospheric pressure. Very di- since 1917 requested gas samples from production and
lute concentrations of substances use the abbreviation ppm wildcat wells drilled in helium-prospective play areas as
(parts per million), meaning “out of a million.” part of the strategic Federal Helium Program (Rogers,
1921; Moore, 1976, 1982). In 2015, helium analyses ob-
“Helium-rich” gas is used throughout this report to represent tained by the USBM were digitized and included in the
a helium concentration of 0.50% or more contained in the gas publicly available USGS Energy Resources Program −
stream. Similarly, the terms “carbon dioxide- and nitrogen- energy geochemistry database (EGDB) (U.S. Geological
rich” gas have been used to denote concentrations higher than Survey, 2015). In 2018, the USGS created a separate and
30% of the combined gas stream. Acidic gas refers to a gas condensed database specifically for and limited to helium
with significant concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and analyses throughout the United States (Brennan and oth-
hydrogen sulfide (H2S); whereas sour gas refers to H2S spe- ers, 2018).
cifically. Craddock and others (2017) express gas analyses as
molar percentages (mol %), while the FHP has historically Historically, spot samples of the gas stream were collected by
used volume concentration (vol %). This report follows the the operator or USBM official at the wellhead using glass bot-
ideal gas assumption that equates mol % to vol % at standard tles at atmospheric pressure or in pressurized steel cylinders
temperature and pressure. (Moore and Sigler, 1987). Using a variety of methods samples
were analyzed, tabulated, and published as Information Cir-
While the study objective has been to highlight Utah’s culars (figure 23) by the Section of Research and Analytical
documented helium potential resource plays as a guide for Services branch of the USBM Federal Helium Program out of
explorationists, the field and well data in this report are by Amarillo, Texas (Anderson and Hinson, 1951; Driskill, 2008;
no means the only areas where helium may be prospec- Craddock and others, 2017).
tive in Utah. Many wells were drilled in potential helium
play fairways throughout Utah, but few were ever tested Early gas sample analytical work used rudimentary technol-
or completed in proven helium-bearing formations. Most ogy and has been considered “generally reliable” (Rogers,
wells completed in known helium gas reservoirs did not 1921; Anderson and Hinson, 1951), although the data may not
document a helium test specified as part of a gas analy- be as precise as analyses using modern gas chromatographic
sis. Similarly, many prospective helium plays remain so techniques. In 1949, the more modern mass spectrometer
sparsely drilled that there is potential for entire helium ac- gradually replaced older analytical methods (Anderson and
cumulations to be discovered between dry holes. Also, the Hinson, 1951; Craddock and others, 2017). In 1978, the he-
USBM, BLM, and USGS helium data used in this report lium gas chromatograph was introduced by the USBM and
are based on analyses of spot samples obtained from wells, used in conjunction with the mass spectrometer and is still in
and as such they do not necessarily represent the concen- use today (Moore, 1982; Driskill, 2008).
tration of helium in the reservoir. In some instances, the
gas analysis may include commingled gas from two or The USBM reported the composition of natural gas streams
more potential helium-bearing horizons within the same to the nearest 0.1%, except for helium, which was reported
well (e.g., Jurassic Entrada Sandstone and Morrison For- to the nearest 0.01% by total volume. The word “trace” has
mation at Harley Dome). been used to represent helium quantities less than 0.005%
and quantities of other gas constituents less than 0.05%
Our search for possible helium plays in Utah began with a (Moore, 1976; Driskill, 2008). Being highly soluble in water,
survey of all known gas producing areas with documented hydrogen sulfide (H2S) reported by the USBM prior to 1949
helium occurrences. Data presented in this report were may not be entirely accurate due to the use of water during
compiled from several publications (e.g., Preston, 1961; laboratory analysis (Anderson and Hinson, 1951; Moore and
Stowe, 1972; Campbell and Bacon, 1976; Moore, 1982; Sigler, 1987). A common indicator of sample contamination
Moore and Sigler, 1987; Jenden and Kaplan, 1989; Hamak due to cleanliness and handling issues is excessive amounts
and Sigler, 1991; Hamak and Gage, 1992; Hill and Bere- of oxygen (O2) (Anderson and Hinson, 1951). Although sam-
skin, 1993; Gage and Driskill, 1998, 2005; Driskill, 2008; ples containing over 1.0% O2 have not been omitted from this
Craddock and others, 2017), including supporting docu- report, a note of caution is warranted for analyses containing
mentation found in individual public well files from the oxygen levels above this threshold.
Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (UDOGM). Each
helium-prospective play area in this report was subjected From its inception in 1917 to the most recent 2008 publica-
to in-depth study and analysis to identify the most promis- tion, the Federal Helium Program has analyzed, documented,
ing helium resources in Utah. and published 454 spot samples of helium occurrences in
Utah (e.g., Moore and Sigler, 1987; Hamak and Sigler, 1990;
Application of Data Gage and Driskill, 1998, 2005; Driskill, 2008). Of these 454
samples, 94 have returned helium concentrations of 0.30%
The most prolific aggregator of helium well data for this He or greater, with one helium occurrence sourced from a
report has been the USBM, succeeded by the BLM, which pipeline gas sample (see appendix).
Figure 23. Example of data gathered and published by the Section of Research and Analytical Services branch of the U.S. Bureau of
Mines (USBM). The sample index 192 on the far right is the same 1968 Lansdale Govt 4 well as shown in figure 22. Note the difference
in sample dates and helium concentration from 7.31% He in figure 22 to 6.99% He as reported by the USBM.
For oil and gas wells drilled in eastern Utah, documented marily from the Cane Creek shale zone within the structur-
gas stream composition data is better preserved in the public ally complex, faulted anticlines and fractured reservoirs of
well file for older wells (figures 22 and 24), particularly those the Pennsylvanian Paradox Formation (Hill and Bereskin,
drilled from the 1940s into the 1970s. This preservation may 1993). Other significant oil and gas shows in the area are from
originate because drill stem tests (DSTs) were commonly similar Paradox clastic zones as well as the deeper helium-
used during the frontier exploration phase to obtain fluid and bearing Mississippian Leadville Limestone (figure 20). Geo-
pressure data from a geological formation during the drilling physical 3-D data are useful in locating the deeper structures.
of a well (figure 24) before more sophisticated wireline log-
ging tools were developed. This results in fewer gas stream The Big Flat, Long Canyon, and Bartlett Flat wells that com-
analyses in more recently drilled wells, especially within the prise this play area were drilled in the 1950s and 1960s to
intervals most prospective for helium. A note of caution is depths ranging from 7441 to 7954 feet (Preston, 1961; Hill
warranted here for documented gas analyses from a DST be- and Bereskin, 1993). The three helium-prospective wells
cause of the increased potential for sample contamination by drilled at Big Flat and the former Bartlett Flat field have been
oxygenated mud filtrate (Selley and Sonnenberg, 2015). plugged and abandoned, but documented percentages for
these wells range from 0.30% to 1.70% He and up to 86.0%
Big Flat Area, Grand County N2 (Stowe, 1972; Moore and Sigler, 1987). The Big Flat Unit 1
well recorded “non-flammable gas” with “black water” from
The Big Flat field area (figure 25), located primarily within T. Mississippian DSTs #4 and #5 from a depth interval of 7486
23 S., R. 17 E. (Salt Lake Baseline and Meridian [SLB&M]), to 7637 feet (Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining, 2020).
is composed of multiple fields of variable size (Wood and The UDOGM well file records a gas analysis in DST #4
Chidsey, 2015) and is geographically located on the north- showing 86.13% N2, 5.77% CH4, 1.76% CO2, and 5.77% light
western flank of the Paradox Basin in the salt anticline area of hydrocarbons. Although there were minor shows farther up
Grand County, adjacent to Canyonlands National Park to the section in the Paradox Formation, the most promising helium
west and Arches National Park to the east (plate 1). Bounded shows in these wells were sourced from nitrogen-rich reser-
by basement-involved northwest to southeast-oriented high- voirs of the Leadville Limestone below the salt of the Para-
angle faults, these fields produce oil and associated gas pri- dox Formation. Consistent with the methane dilution concept
Figure 24. Daily drilling report from Texaco’s 1960 Temple Springs Unit 1 well (API 43-015-11324), section 14, T. 25 S., R. 13 E.
(SLB&M), Emery County, Utah, shows an inert gas stream was encountered during drill stem test #6 within a depth interval of 4670 to
4741 feet. The analyzed sample recorded 2.77% He and over 97% N2 from the Devonian Elbert Formation beneath the San Rafael Desert
in central Utah. This well penetrated Precambrian basement rock at a depth of 6260 feet. Sourced from the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and
Mining public well file.
for control on high-helium gas, the most significant helium This area experienced drilling activity from the earliest days
concentrations were found below the hydrocarbon productive of oil exploration in Utah. More recently, Fidelity Exploration
Cane Creek shale (figure 20). and Production Co. shot a 3-D seismic survey in this area
from which they based a successful directional and hori-
Like the Big Flat field, the more southerly positioned Long zontal drilling program in the Paradox Formation. In 2016,
Canyon field also has helium shows in the Leadville. Docu- Fidelity sold their interests to Wesco Operating Inc., which
mented helium percentages for the two wells located in the has been actively drilling to further define the Paradox pe-
Long Canyon area are 1.30% and 1.48% He with significantly troleum play. Helium testing of gas samples from these wells
high nitrogen concentrations of over 91% N2 and exception- should be encouraged, especially wells that penetrate deeper
ally low methane and carbon dioxide (Moore and Sigler, Devonian-Mississippian reservoirs.
1987). Well reports from two Mississippian DSTs taken from
a depth interval of 7606 to 7766 feet in the Long Canyon 1 Boundary Butte Area, San Juan County –
well indicate that “5 MMcfd of inert gas” and “black sulfur Navajo Nation
water” was encountered while drilling with a “trace of oil”
and orders were made to plug back and complete in the Para- The Boundary Butte field area is located on the southern rim
dox. The Long Canyon 2 well had mechanical issues down- of the Paradox Basin (figure 19), near the southeastern flank of
hole and was subsequently plugged and abandoned. the Monument uplift, in the Four Corners region of Utah (plate
Figure 25. Generalized isopach map for the Mississippian Leadville Limestone from Chidsey (2016 a). Map shows location of fields that
produce from Mississippian reservoirs. Dotted region illustrates the extent of the Leadville Limestone play fairway in the Paradox Basin.
1). Extending into northeastern Arizona (Conley and Giardina, the Boundary Butte area records low helium in hydrocarbon-
1979), the Boundary Butte area is composed of underpres- rich Pennsylvanian reservoirs, likely due to dilution and/or
sured, hydrodynamically driven oil and gas fields with historic reservoir baffles between Mississippian and Pennsylvanian
and current production primarily from structurally complex, rocks. Helium exploration in the Boundary Butte helium play
faulted anticlines of the Middle Pennsylvanian Ismay Zone fairway should focus on shallow structural traps within De-
(figure 20) of the Paradox Formation (Preston, 1961; Stowe, vonian-Mississippian reservoirs.
1972; Campbell and Bacon, 1976; Hill and Bereskin, 1993;
Wood and Chidsey, 2015). Additional productive units include Bowknot Prospect, Emery County
similar carbonate zones of the Middle Pennsylvanian Hermosa
Group as well as the Mississippian Leadville Limestone and The Bowknot helium prospect is based on a 1.47% He gas
Devonian Ouray Limestone (Hill and Bereskin, 1993), all of analysis from the known helium-bearing Mississippian Lead-
which are prospective for helium. Likely sourced from meta- ville Limestone (figure 20) in a remote wildcat well drilled
morphism of marine carbonates and black shales by nearby by the Superior Oil Company in 1962 (Moore, 1982). After
igneous intrusive rocks from the southeast (figure 8), carbon identifying a prospect from a single-fold seismic survey in
dioxide gas is common in hydrocarbon productive Paleozoic the late 1950s, the Bow Knot Unit 14-5 well was drilled near
reservoirs throughout the Four Corners region. the crest of a north-oriented anticline in the SWSW section 5,
T. 26 S., R. 17 E. (SLB&M), 5 miles southwest of the Green
Thirteen gas wells reported economic amounts of helium in River feature known as Bowknot Bend in Emery County
the Boundary Butte field area (Stowe, 1972; Moore, 1982; (plate 1) (Doelling and others, 2015). The anticlinal structure
Moore and Sigler, 1987), located entirely on Navajo Tribal is truncated by a northwest- to southeast-oriented, high-angle
Lands in extreme southeastern San Juan County. Also in- fault observable in well log correlation on the structural top
cluded are analyses from wells in the Chinle Wash, Desert of the Leadville between the 14-5 well and the Federal 2-20
Creek, Gothic Mesa, and White Mesa fields, similarly located well drilled 3 miles to the south by Megadon Enterprises in
on Navajo land. The gas content of the Boundary Butte heli- 1981 (Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining, 2020).
um play fairway has two stratigraphically distinct reservoirs.
Devonian reservoirs are carbon dioxide-rich (56%−78% CO2) The Davis Oil Company Pool Unit 1 well in section 17, T.
and have only minor amounts of methane, whereas shallower 26 S., R. 17 E. (SLB&M) defines the southern boundary of
Pennsylvanian reservoirs show negligible carbon dioxide and a major paleo-structure with a northwest-oriented, down-to-
increased methane content. the-southwest high-angle fault immediately north of the well.
Multiple 2-D seismic surveys were performed within the gen-
The Boundary Butte helium prospects tested from 0.44% to eral vicinity of the initial Unit 14-5 exploratory well through-
1.58% He with the majority of sampled wells completed in the out the 1980s and early 1990s. In 2007, Samson Oil and Gas
Pennsylvanian Paradox Formation without testing the deeper completed a nearly 100-square-mile 3-D seismic survey in
formations (Moore, 1982; Moore and Sigler, 1987). Although the San Rafael Desert between the Bowknot prospect and
Campbell and Bacon (1976) note a maximum helium concen- Temple Springs prospect farther to the west (plate 1). This
tration of nearly 3.0% for the Desert Creek field, no specific prospective helium play fairway averages only three wells
gas analysis with this high helium concentration could be tied drilled per township with additional exploration necessary to
to a particular well in the USBM or UDOGM database. The further define the geographic extent of the play.
most promising 1.58% He test was from the Devonian Ouray
Limestone stratigraphically situated below the Paradox salt in Six DSTs were run while drilling the 14-5 well with “non-
section 2, T. 42 S., R 22 E. (SLB&M). Two wells in the Chinle flammable” gas encountered from DST #3 from a depth of
Wash field tested 0.73% and 0.80% He from the Paradox. The 6350-6410 feet in a zone of “massive porosity.” Maximum gas
single prospect at Desert Creek had a helium show of 1.37% rate was 15,000 Mcfd from the lower dolomite section of the
from the Ouray Limestone. The White Mesa well tested 0.53% Leadville Limestone, which also recorded significant residual
He from the Pennsylvanian Hermosa Group and the Nav-An- oil staining (Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining, 2020). The
ido Creek 1 well tested 0.32% He from the Paradox. Although gas analyzed from this well was recovered from DST #2 at a
nearly all the wells on Navajo lands in San Juan County that depth of 6270 feet in the Leadville. This low-Btu gas included
produced economic helium analyses produced the inert gas significant amounts of nitrogen (79.1% N2) and hydrogen sul-
from Pennsylvanian reservoirs, the two highest results origi- fide (0.20% H2S) with a minor methane component (12.6%
nated from deeper Devonian carbonate reservoirs. CH4). Despite the significant helium concentration of 1.47%
found within the gas stream, this well was drilled and aban-
Opposite the Utah state line on the Arizona side of the doned as a dry hole. Based upon analysis of the 14-5 well and
Boundary Butte helium play fairway, gas analyses show a shows in surrounding wells, the Leadville has seen a pervasive
significant increase in helium concentrations from Devonian- and voluminous hydrocarbon charge in this area.
Mississippian reservoirs towards the Defiance uplift farther
south (Conley and Giardina, 1979; Moore and Sigler, 1987). Hanshaw and Hill (1969) note significant groundwater changes
Similar to the Big Flat helium play area of Grand County, in Paleozoic reservoirs west of the Green River, likely due to
thinning of Pennsylvanian salt farther west. Public well file re- ed by Moore (1982). The test result indicated a nitrogen-rich
ports from the Bow Knot Unit 14-5 well records nearly 1300 gas stream (80.1% N2) with 0.48% He and is the only Weber
feet of Pennsylvanian salt penetrated while drilling the pros- Sandstone helium test at Clay Basin. The well was plugged
pect well (Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining, 2020). This and abandoned in November 2016.
clearly demonstrates the existence of an effective seal for any
helium accumulations below the base of the salt in this area. Between 2008 and 2013, a second Weber penetration was
made less than a mile southwest of the Clay Basin Unit 11
The remote and rugged nature of this prospect makes it chal- well, but no record of a gas analysis was found from this ef-
lenging. Regardless, both SITLA and BLM leases have been fort. Although there are many wells in the Clay Basin field
issued surrounding the original prospect well and much of area in both Utah and Wyoming (Wood and Chidsey, 2015;
the San Rafael Desert. The challenges have been increased by Toner and others, 2019), only one obtained a gas analysis
the inclusion of the acreage in the Emery County Wilderness from the Weber Sandstone. The 0.48% He result is of enough
Study Area in early 2019, but a recent BLM initiative to in- interest to warrant further helium exploration in the deeper
crease helium exploration on federal lands in Utah may make Weber Sandstone potential helium play.
this prospect a viable option for helium-specific operators.
Grassy Trail Area, Carbon & Emery County
Clay Basin Field, Daggett County
The Grassy Trail helium play area straddles the Carbon-Em-
The helium prospect at the Clay Basin field (figure 19) is po- ery county line on the north-plunging end of the San Rafael
sitioned along the north flank of the Uinta Mountains uplift Swell (plate 1) (Preston, 1961). This potential helium play
and on the extreme southern margin of the Green River Basin includes the Farnham Dome, Sunnyside, and Grassy Trail
in northeastern Utah. The Clay Basin field has produced pri- gas fields. Production in the area is primarily from faulted
marily from fluvial channel deposits of the Early Cretaceous plunging anticlines, with internal stratigraphic trapping
Dakota Sandstone (Preston, 1961; Hill and Bereskin, 1993). mechanisms (Hill and Bereskin, 1993). The producing zones
The structure at Clay Basin consists of a predominantly east- have historically been Jurassic-Triassic eolian deposits of the
west oriented, elongate, closed anticline that parallels the Navajo Sandstone and deltaic horizons in the Moenkopi For-
high-angle, north-dipping Uinta fault located a few miles mation (figure 20). Similarly, Hanshaw and Hill (1969) note
south of the field (Preston, 1961). the hydrodynamic environment and intertonguing between
Permian-age strata in this area to be favorable for trapping
Over 60 wells have been drilled at Clay Basin since the 1927 migrating oil and natural gas.
discovery well drilled by Producers and Refiners Corp (Utah
Division of Oil, Gas and Mining, 2020). In the mid-1930s, Multiple wildcat wells were drilled in Carbon County by
Mountain Fuel Supply (MFS) acquired and unitized the area, Mountain Fuel Supply Co. from 1959 to 1970 near Sunnyside,
drilling 10 more wells that produced natural gas from the one of which had a significant helium show of 1.22% from
Dakota Sandstone and Frontier Formation before converting the Sunnyside Unit 1 well in a nitrogen-rich (60.1% N2) gas
part of the field to seasonal natural gas storage. stream from the Triassic Moenkopi Formation at a depth of
5092 feet (Moore, 1982). Craddock and others (2017) report a
Only one of the early wells drilled at Clay Basin penetrated methane-rich gas stream with a 0.30% He concentration from
the helium-prospective Permian- Pennsylvanian Weber Sand- the Wellington Flats 15-11-18E well drilled by Whiting Oil &
stone. The RD Murphy 6-W/Clay Basin Unit #11 well was Gas Corporation in 2013, which is currently a shut-in oil and
drilled and completed in 1946−47, to a depth of 9355 feet in the gas well operated by Liberty Pioneer Energy Source, Inc.
SENW section 22, T. 3 N., R. 24 E. (SLB&M). Twenty DSTs
were performed during the drilling of this well, with four tests In Emery County, there are two documented helium tests ap-
in the Weber Sandstone interval producing significant quanti- proximately 5 miles apart and a few hundred feet from the
ties of “non-flammable” gas. An analysis of a gas sample from county line. At a depth of 4258 feet, the Grassy Trail Fed 4-32
the Dakota Sandstone noted 0.03% He, but the Weber DST well (API 43-015-30121) had a helium show of 0.71% from a
samples do not indicate a test for helium. The well was subse- similar nitrogen-rich (60.7% N2) gas stream sourced from the
quently plugged back to and produced from the Dakota. Moenkopi Formation (Moore and Sigler, 1987). The comple-
tion report for the Fed 4-32 well recorded minor oil (Utah
In 1969, MFS re-entered the well, renamed the Clay Basin Division of Oil, Gas and Mining, 2020), which may indicate
Unit #11, and deepened it to 11,778 feet in a transgressive that the helium is dissolved in the oil resulting in the higher
sandstone interval of the Cambrian Lodore Formation. Dur- helium concentration. Moore and Sigler (1987) show multiple
ing this operation, a DST in the Weber from a depth inter- spot samples taken from the Federal Mounds 1 well in Feb-
val of 9007−9358 feet produced 8500 Mcfd that “would not ruary of 1965, which provided a range of 0.52%−0.55% He
burn.” Although there is no gas analysis in the well file, the analyses from the much deeper Mississippian Deseret Lime-
depth and date correspond to the USBM analysis document- stone (Madison equivalent) at a depth of 8520 feet.
Well file notes for the Federal Mounds 1 well indicate Cam- Greater Cisco Area, Grand County
brian rocks were penetrated at a total depth of 9425 feet
(Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining, 2020). Multiple Regionally located on the southwestern flank of the Un-
DSTs were run with significant “non-flammable” gas and compahgre Uplift (plate 1), the Greater Cisco gas field
brackish water encountered in the Mississippian section complex includes: Cisco Dome, Cisco Townsite, Cisco
(figure 20). Notes indicate the well was plugged back and Springs, Cisco Springs-North, Cisco Wash, Danish Wash,
another DST was run in the Pennsylvanian section, which and Seiber Nose fields (Preston, 1961; Hill and Bereskin,
produced a 1.0% He test from a nitrogen-dominated (73% 1993). The area is situated along I-70, approximately 20
N2) gas stream with a significant carbon dioxide (25% CO2) miles west of the Colorado state line. The Utah Division
component. Hill and Bereskin (1993) document a 0.59% He of Oil, Gas and Mining also includes the Harley Dome
test from the Federal 11-33 at Grassy Trail in a natural gas field as part of Greater Cisco, but, due to the high helium
stream noted in the well file as having 34.9% "non-combus- concentrations characteristic of Harley Dome, it is treated
tible" gas reported on the well completion report in 1984. separately in this report.
The analysis was taken from a shaly, calcareous sandstone
interval of the Triassic Moenkopi Formation. The Federal More than 600 shallow wells have been drilled since 1925
11-33 remains an orphaned, shut-in oil well formerly oper- (Stowe, 1972) in the Cisco area for oil and gas trapped in the
ated by Genesis Petroleum US, Inc. and is contracted to be Late Cretaceous Castlegate Sandstone, Mancos Shale, Dako-
plugged by the BLM in 2020 (Utah Division of Oil, Gas and ta Sandstone, Cedar Mountain Formation, Jurassic Morrison
Mining, 2020). Formation and the Late Jurassic Entrada Sandstone (figure
21) (Wood and Chidsey, 2015; Utah Division of Oil, Gas and
Five miles to the north of the gas wells at Grassy Trail and Mining, 2020). Each of the small isolated fields produce from
Sunnyside is the fault-bounded anticline known as the Farn- shallow sandstone intervals with hydrocarbons and associat-
ham Dome carbon dioxide field (Morgan, 2007), which has ed gas trapped by well-defined lateral and vertical seals along
produced almost 5 Bcf of nearly pure carbon dioxide (~99% the west-northwestern flank of the Uncompahgre mountain
CO2) (Zartman and others, 1961) from stacked reservoirs in front (Hill and Bereskin, 1993).
the Jurassic Navajo Sandstone and Permian Coconino Sand-
stone since the discovery well in 1924. This CO2-rich gas The highest helium shows were found in wells drilled
supplied the dry ice plant in Wellington from 1931 to 1979 in the 1960s just north of I-70 along a 6-mile stretch
when the field was abandoned due to lack of a market (Hill northeast of the old Cisco townsite with a range of he-
and Bereskin, 1993). The Pan American Petroleum Corpo- lium values from 0.50% to 1.47% (Stowe, 1972; Moore,
ration drilled the USA Farnham Dome 1 well to basement 1982; Moore and Sigler, 1987). In June 1963, U-Tex Oil
at a total depth of 8509 feet (Campbell, 1978). Well control Company penetrated the Jurassic Morrison Formation at
over the area from Campbell (1978) suggests basement-cored 1308 feet with their Federal 5 (API 43-019-16259) well in
faulting has provided significant migration pathways for section 10, T. 20 S., R. 24 E. (SLB&M). A DST taken in
CO2-charged groundwater. More recent activity at Farnham the Morrison at a depth of 1298 feet recorded 1.47% He
Dome occurred in 2007 when Savoy Energy, LLC drilled the and 20.44% N2 within a methane-rich (76.12% CH4) gas
Savoy 1 carbon dioxide gas well on the crest of the structure. stream (Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining, 2020). A
No significant helium analysis has been recorded at Farnham spot sample from the Cretaceous Buckhorn Conglomer-
Dome, but the anomalously high carbon dioxide gas accumu- ate at 842 feet resulted in a helium show of 0.66% from
lation may be an indicator for helium- and nitrogen-rich CO2 the Pumpelly-Stava 30-81 well. The gas stream was pre-
gas migration (Zartman and others, 1961). dominantly methane (82.1% CH4) with a minor nitrogen
(13.1% N2) component. Most wells in this helium play are
Like other helium plays on basin-uplift transitional areas in methane-rich with a minor helium component of 0.30% or
Utah, helium-bearing gas in Carbon and Emery Counties is less, indicating significant helium dilution from methane
associated with high concentrations of carbon dioxide and generation in nearby source rocks.
nitrogen, with minor amounts of methane. Helium concen-
tration generally decreases as carbon dioxide increases and Helium shows over 1.0% were all recorded from the Mor-
without an associated high concentration of hydrocarbon gas- rison Formation, which also had higher nitrogen concentra-
es to make extraction of helium economic, this helium play tions in their gas stream and were sourced from wells near
has a low potential for exploration (Gloyn and others, 2003). the northeastern edge of the defined hydrocarbon field area.
If supply and demand further helium exploration in this area, Wells drilled and completed in shallower Cretaceous reser-
explorationists should focus on hydrodynamics and fluid mi- voirs recorded only trace amounts of helium (figure 20). He-
gration direction. Potential helium prospects must be updip lium generated in too shallow of strata can lose helium to the
and far enough from CO2 sources to allow for the CO2 to be surface by diffusion and helium co-generated or associated
removed from the gas (figure 10, C) by mineralization during with hydrocarbon gases will be severely diluted to subeco-
long migration (Brown, 2010). nomic levels (Brown, 2010).
Harley Dome Field, Grand County clustered atop a northwest-trending structural dome with
roughly 100 feet of closure (Dane, 1935; Willis, 1994). The
Harley Dome, formerly known as Harley anticline (Dane, wells are shallow with helium-bearing intervals in the Mor-
1935), is the single, truly defined helium gas field in Utah (fig- rison at 500 to 600 feet and the Entrada at ~800 to 950 feet.
ure 3). Numerous wells have encountered significantly high Stowe (1972) documented a subeconomic helium sample
helium concentrations from combination traps in Jurassic res- (0.2% He) from the Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone at a depth
ervoirs at depths less than 1000 feet, mostly in nitrogen-dom- of 930 feet from the Harley Govt 1 well (API 43-019-15046)
inated (~85% N2) gas streams with a negligible methane and in section 30, T. 18 S., R. 25 E. (SLB&M). On the Colorado
carbon dioxide component (Moore, 1976, 1982; Moore and Si- side, marginally economic (< 1.0% He) helium shows are lo-
gler, 1987). In June of 1932, a small area on the crest of Harley cated farther north-northeast, opposite the state line from the
Dome, partly in T. 18 S., R. 25 E. (SLB&M) and partly in T. 19 Utah San Arroyo gas field (Smith and others, 1991) with a
S., R. 25 E. (SLB&M), was designated as the Federal Helium significant drop in helium concentration due to dilution from
Reserve #2 by executive order, which was later rescinded and methane generation and migration from hydrocarbon source
reopened for leasing in 1964 (Dane, 1935; Willis, 1994; Oil & rocks in the Uinta and Piceance Basins to the northwest and
Gas Journal, 2013). Although Harley Dome was recognized as northeast, respectively (figure 8).
a separate field for most of its history, UDOGM has included
it as the most northeasterly positioned field of several struc- The Harley Dome 2 well, formerly the Weightman-Fallgren
turally isolated fields that constitute the Greater Cisco Area #1 well (API 43-019-11514), was drilled in 1926 by the same
since 1978. It is treated separately in this report because it is Denver-based Tom McGuire who acquired the discovery well.
distinctly different from the Cisco helium play and singularly The well was sampled twice from the Entrada Sandstone and
important because of its high helium concentrations. once in the Morrison Formation in 1931 with significant heli-
um shows of 7.06% and 7.02% from the Entrada and 2.45% He
Harley Dome is geographically located on a basin-margin from the Morrison (Dane, 1935; Moore, 1982). In a strategic
transitional area between the Uinta and Piceance Basins to conservation effort by the federal government in 1944, both
the north and northeast, and the Paradox Basin to the south- the Bashor 1 and Harley Dome 2 wells were ordered plugged
west (plate 1). The Harley Dome field is positioned on the by the USGS with significant frustration from the operator.
northwestern surficial flank of the Uncompahgre uplift, a In 1968, the Lansdale Govt. 4 (API 43-019-30003) well was
northwest-southeast oriented remnant of the Late Pennsyl- drilled to a depth of 972 feet in the Entrada and produced
vanian Ancestral Rocky Mountains (Case, 1991; Hill and the highest helium concentration recorded in Utah at 7.31%
Bereskin, 1993; Willis, 1994). The Harley Dome field has He from a nitrogen-dominated (86.1% N2) gas stream (figure
historically been difficult for hydrocarbon exploration and 22). The Lansdale Govt. 13 (API 43-019-30008) well was also
production due to an underpressured reservoir, highly sa- drilled in 1968 but to a greater depth and subsequently pen-
line formation water, and the nitrogen-rich (38.7%−86.1% etrated through 35 feet of granite wash and into Precambrian
N2) gas stream with a significant helium component of more granitic basement rock (figure 21) at 1805 feet, which is sug-
than 7.0%. Production of natural gas has been minimal and gested to be a good potential source of U- and Th-rich mineral
primarily in Cretaceous through Jurassic sandstone inter- grains necessary to generate helium (Brown, 2010; Craddock
vals in the Dakota Sandstone, Morrison Formation, and the and others, 2017). In east-central Utah, the basal member of
helium-bearing Entrada Sandstone (Hill and Bereskin, 1993; the Late Triassic Chinle Formation, a known target for ura-
Seneshen, 2018). No public helium analyses are available for nium ore exploration in Utah (figure 8) (Shoemaker, 1955;
the Cretaceous formations penetrated at Harley Dome. Chenoweth, 1990), overlies basement rock forming a non-
conformity (Case, 1991), which may indicate a sedimentary
The Harley Dome discovery well was drilled in 1925 in the contribution to the high-helium gas at Harley Dome. Well file
NENE section 4, T. 19 S., R. 25 E. (SLB&M), essentially on reports for the Lansdale Govt. 13 well document a spot sample
the crest of the structure (Willis, 1994). The operator, H.H. of 10 MMcfd and 6.47% He from 946 feet in the Entrada with
Bashor, initially drilled the Bashor 1 well (API 43-019-11513) commingled helium-rich natural gas from the Morrison at 635
to 802 feet, which was later plugged back to roughly 600 feet. feet (Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining, 2020).
The well was then acquired by Tom McGuire in 1926 and
subsequently tested 2.25% He from the Morrison in July of Multiple well reports from UDOGM in the vicinity of Har-
1929 (Dane, 1935; Moore, 1982). ley Dome document near-normal or underpressured Jurassic
reservoirs, and the production drive mechanism is by solution
Spot samples of four wells at Harley Dome exhibit signifi- gas expansion (Campbell and Bacon, 1976) rather than water
cantly high helium concentrations between 6.47% and 7.31% encroachment. Dense, laminated siltstones and mudrock of
from the Entrada Sandstone (figure 22). Three additional the Jurassic Summerville Formation and impermeable shaly
wells had helium shows between 2.25% and 2.51% either members (e.g., basal Tidwell and upper Brushy Basin Mem-
from the porous and permeable Entrada or channel sandstone bers) in the Morrison Formation provide an adequate seal over
beds within the Morrison Formation farther up section. All most of the helium-bearing Entrada Sandstone in this area
seven significant helium-tested wells at Harley Dome are (Willis, 1994). Uranium-enriched lenticular sandstone beds in
the middle Salt Wash Member of the Morrison Formation are helium caused the wells to be shut-in. Over the course of five
more laterally extensive and contain brine water (Shoemaker, years, gas production from IACX’s three operational wells
1955; Barton and others, 2018) and nitrogen-rich gas (43.8% at Harley Dome totaled 642,418 Mcf. Transported pure he-
N2) with a much higher methane component (50% CH4), in- lium gas totaled 42,120 Mcf (Utah Division of Oil, Gas and
dicating a leaky seal. Migrating gas will pick up helium and Mining, 2020). Personal communication with the operator in
nitrogen from pore water as it sweeps through permeable for- spring 2019 suggests that a 7.5% He test had been produced
mations (figures 6 and 10), in addition to gases dissolved in from the Fed. 1-4 well prior to shut-in operations, but without
pore water of dense mudrock adjacent to the gas carrier beds formal documentation this analysis cannot be verified and has
(Brown, 2010). This may help to explain the high-helium gas been left out of this report. In the spring of 2019, operatorship
concentrations found in the Entrada and only minor amounts of the currently shut-in Flatirons wells transferred to IACX.
in stratigraphically higher formations (figure 20).
Lisbon Area, San Juan County
Anomalously high-salinity formation water (< 36,186 ppm),
specifically within the shallow Entrada reservoir, is common The Lisbon oil and gas field area (figure 16) is a proven
in this area of far east-central Utah. Farther north, where the (Stowe, 1972), but underdeveloped helium play positioned
Entrada dips gently (< 10°) northward toward the young Uinta near the center of the Paradox Basin (figure 25), a Paleozoic
Basin in northeastern Utah (figure 8), water recovered from feature that encompasses much of the Four Corners region on
the Entrada during production testing of a well in SWSW the Colorado Plateau (Parker and Roberts, 1966), specifically
section 24, T. 13 S., R. 22 E. (SLB&M) was analyzed and southeastern Utah and southwestern Colorado (figures 8, 12,
found to contain average total dissolved solids (TDS) of over and 13). The Paradox Basin is a hydrodynamically and struc-
80,000 ppm (Eisinger and Lowe, 1999). The impermeable turally complex depression created by periods of surface up-
mudrock of the overlying Summerville and Morrison Forma- lift, folding and faulting, and by episodes of salt flowage and
tions concentrate the brine in the Entrada Sandstone below. coeval subsidence (figure 17) (Hill and Bereskin, 1993; Nuc-
Thus, groundwater salinity increases vertically with depth cio and Condon, 1996). Growth of the salt anticlines initiated
in the Entrada reservoir. According to Sugisaki (1987) and in Pennsylvanian time, with intermittent growth continuing
Brown (2010), both pressure and salinity play a major role in today (Bradley, 1975; Condon, 1997). Due to extensive salt
the distribution of helium-rich gas in the subsurface. Shallow, flowage and the structural complexity of the area, 3-D geo-
underpressured reservoirs exsolve more helium and nitrogen physical exploration is often necessary in locating the deeper
into the gas phase than in deep, higher-pressured reservoirs. structures. Such issues create difficulties for independents
Additionally, formations with high salinity in pore water fa- that may have limited exploration resources.
vor more helium in the gas phase (Brown, 2010).
Aside from oil and natural gas, economic resources within
At the time of this report, the source of the helium (granitic the Paradox Basin include: Pennsylvanian potash and other
basement vs. sedimentary source) at Harley Dome is unclear. salts and brines (e.g., potassium [K] and lithium [Li]), numer-
Further studies of inert gases at Harley Dome should focus on ous Triassic-Jurassic sandstone-hosted metallic ore deposits
hydrodynamics associated with helium charge, specifically: (e.g., radium [Ra], uranium [U], and vanadium [V]) (figure
(1) mapping the gas-water contact (GWC), (2) determining 8), and some of the world’s largest accumulations of acidic
the trapping mechanism, (3) determining flow direction and gas (Shoemaker, 1955; Barton and others, 2018).
source of water, and (4) determining if there is an active pe-
troleum system charging the Entrada carrier bed. The helium-bearing Mississippian Leadville Limestone was
an attractive target for early petroleum explorers within the
Despite the decades-long status as the Federal Helium Re- Lisbon field area and remains one of many oil and gas plays in
serve #2, no commercial helium production took place at the Paradox Basin (figures 19 and 20) (Seneshen and others,
Harley Dome until IACX Energy commissioned a propri- 2010; Chidsey, 2016a,b), the more active plays targeting hy-
etary, small-scale, non-cryogenic, helium extraction plant in drocarbon-rich zones of the Pennsylvanian Hermosa Group,
the area in late 2012 (figure 15, bottom) (Oil & Gas Journal, which includes the upper and lower Paradox Formation (figure
2013). The Harley Dome plant enabled IACX and Flatirons 18) (Hill and Bereskin, 1993; Cappa and Rice, 1995; Whidden
Resources to justify drilling the Flatirons Fed. 1-4 helium and others, 2012). The Devonian Ouray Limestone underlies
well on the structure during the summer of 2013 (Utah Divi- the Leadville in the Lisbon field area (Condon, 1995), which
sion of Oil, Gas and Mining, 2020), by allowing the crude straddles Utah and Colorado (figures 26 and 27). The Ouray
helium to be trucked to market. Subsequently, the Flatirons has produced only minor amounts of oil and gas from the Lis-
Fed. 1-4, Lansdale Govt. 4, and the Lansdale Govt. 1 became bon field in Utah and is known to lack effective porosity and
the first and only wells specifically to produce and market the permeability for hydrocarbons elsewhere in the basin (Parker
sale of helium from Harley Dome. and Roberts, 1966).
Helium sales from nitrogen-rich gas at Harley Dome took Although the Mississippian hydrocarbon play fairway is ex-
place between 2013 and 2018, when a drop in the price of tensive (figure 25), only roughly 100 wells have penetrated the
Figure 26. Generalized area map for the Four Corners region with emphasis on structure and major petroleum fields within the
Paradox Basin from Chidsey (2016 b). The northern part of the basin is known as the “Paradox fold and fault belt,” and is composed of
nearly parallel, northwest-trending faults, anticlines, and synclines. The relatively undeformed Blanding sub-basin and Four Corners
platform make up the southern part of the Paradox Basin. Note that the high-carbon dioxide (CO2) gas produced from Mississippian
reservoirs at McElmo Dome in southwestern Colorado supplies CO2 for enhanced oil recovery to the Greater Aneth field in far
southeastern Utah as well as the Permian Basin of West Texas and southeast New Mexico.
Leadville from the Utah side (Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Predominantly located in T. 30 S., R. 24 E. (SLB&M), the
Mining, 2020), with production primarily from the northwest- Lisbon field area is situated on a large, faulted anticlinal pa-
southeast trending northern Paradox Basin fold-and-fault belt leo-structure that encompasses eight geographically defined
(Cappa and Rice, 1995; Seneshen and others, 2010). The Lead- oil and gas fields over ~50,000 acres in San Juan County.
ville has produced over 53 MMbbls of condensate and 854 The Lisbon anticline is fully encased by Paradox salt and has
Bcf of relatively wet natural gas from seven fields in the area structural closure of nearly 2000 feet with a high-angle re-
with most hydrocarbon production from carbonate reservoirs verse fault bordering the northeast boundary (Bradley, 1975).
bounded by basement-involved structural traps within the Lis- The oil and associated gas field was discovered in 1960 by the
bon field (Hill and Bereskin, 1993; Seneshen and others, 2010). Pure Oil Company with their No. 1 NW Lisbon (A) well using
Figure 27. Typical gamma ray-sonic log of the Mississippian Leadville Limestone from Chidsey (2016 a). Note the Northwest Lisbon
no. 1 well was completed as the Lisbon field discovery well in 1960. The well was perforated between 7576 and 7970 feet.
extensive subsurface (figure 27) and seismic exploration (Pres- significant amounts of radiogenic helium per volume of rock
ton, 1961; Stowe, 1972). At a depth of 8000 to 9000 feet, the (Brown, 2010). Thus, a large volume of source rock is required.
folded and faulted porous zones in the basal McCracken Sand- Although overall rates of helium generation are low for average
stone Member of the Devonian Elbert Formation and Missis- carbonates and sandstones, significantly higher generation rates
sippian Leadville Limestone dolomite beds form the primary can occur in old shales, granites, and some dirty limestones and
reservoirs (Baars, 1966; Hill and Bereskin, 1993), and both dolomites (figure 7) (Bell and others, 1940; Zartman and others,
are prospective for helium. An expanding gas cap and gravity 1961; Brown, 2010). It is likely that the extensive and thick Pa-
drainage are the primary drive mechanisms (Seneshen and leozoic sedimentary section on the Colorado Plateau (Campbell
others, 2010). Campbell and Bacon (1976) report that the gas and U.S. Geological Survey, 1981; Condon, 1995; Nuccio and
cap over the Mississippian section of the Lisbon field contains Condon, 1996) has a similar, if not the same, helium genera-
significant amounts of helium and acidic gas. tion potential as the underlying crystalline and granitic base-
ment rock. It should also be noted here that petroleum source
The high gamma-ray signatures in Devonian-age rocks found rocks are not helium source rocks (Swanson, 1960; Brown,
in well logs around the Lisbon area and across eastern Utah 2010). Only a small amount of thermogenic methane from hy-
indicate that the shaly mudrock and dirty carbonate beds of drocarbon-rich rocks can significantly dilute a high-helium gas
the Devonian Upper Member of the Elbert Formation have a to subeconomic amounts (Brown, 2010, 2019).
higher radioactive content than the Mississippian section above
(figure 28) (Condon, 1995, Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Min- Many of the wells in the Lisbon field area have been plugged
ing, 2020). A long generation duration is required to generate back or re-completed in the hydrocarbon-rich Paradox For-
Figure 28. Gamma-ray and sonic logs, Apache Drilling Co Inc., Apache Federal #1 (API 43-037-10047). NESE section 13, T. 30 S., R.
23 E. (SLB&M). Wildcat well drilled in 1960 just outside of the Lisbon oil and gas field within the Mississippian Leadville Limestone
play fairway in San Juan County, Utah. The well was drilled and abandoned as a dry hole. Sourced from the well file from the Utah
Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (2020).
mation farther up section. Produced gas from Lisbon is pre- eralization into solids (figure 10, C), sour gas is deadly and
dominantly methane (~30%−70% CH4) and carbon dioxide extreme caution must be used during exploration and produc-
(18%−36% CO2) with nitrogen (< 21% N2), hydrogen sulfide tion in this potential helium play fairway.
(< 1.7% H2S), and helium (~1.0% He) making up the remain-
der of the gas stream (Moore and Sigler, 1987; Cappa and The helium percentages within the Lisbon field area reach
Rice, 1995; Craddock and others, 2017). Acidic gas (CO2 and a high of 1.28% He from the Leadville Limestone in the
H2S) is plentiful throughout the Lisbon area and may be re- unitized Husky Fed 15-25/Hook and Ladder well located in
lated to bacterial sulfate reduction by hydrocarbons or other section 25, T. 29 S., R. 23 E. (SLB&M) (Gage and Driskill,
organic material (Jenden and Kaplan, 1989; Barton and oth- 2003), which is currently a shut-in gas well operated by Para-
ers, 2018). Although long migration of acidic gases may help dox Resources, LLC. Most of the wells identified within the
to concentrate helium and nitrogen in the gas through min- Lisbon field have a 1.0% He or lower helium concentration
(see appendix) and most of the original wells drilled are cur- ing the Greentown field to the north and Ten Mile field to
rently producing natural gas (Utah Division of Oil, Gas and the south, the Salt Wash field area has documented petroleum
Mining, 2020). Paradox Resources has infrastructure in place production from the Mississippian Leadville Limestone with
capable of recovering and processing helium at their Paradox significant hydrocarbon shows in clastic zones of the Penn-
Midstream (Lisbon) gas plant located in San Juan County, sylvanian Paradox Formation farther up section (figure 20)
with a maximum capacity of 60 MMcf per day (figure 16). (Preston, 1963; Hill and Bereskin, 1993). Campbell and Ba-
con (1976) note the Salt Wash field as being a faulted anti-
Seneshen and others (2010) conducted surface geochemical cline with a free gas-cap reservoir drive mechanism. Helium
surveys to evaluate the effectiveness of low-cost, non-inva- prospects at Salt Wash are geographically located within the
sive methods to identify areas of poorly drained or by-passed helium play fairway of the Leadville Limestone (figure 25).
oil throughout both the Lisbon and Lightning Draw SE fields. Westwardly thinning cycles of Paradox salt (Hanshaw and
The study suggests that helium and carbon dioxide anomalies Hill, 1969) form an effective seal to helium-rich gas reser-
in free soil gas at the margins of producing reservoirs could voirs deep in the thick carbonate rock of the Leadville.
be the most diagnostic indicators of underlying Leadville res-
ervoirs (Seneshen and others, 2010). Produced gas composi- The structurally controlled condensate and associated gas
tions indicate that, in comparison with the Lisbon field, the accumulations in limestone and dolomite reservoirs of the
Lightning Draw SE field contains a lower concentration of Mississippian Leadville Limestone was discovered in 1961
hydrocarbons and more nitrogen and helium. The Lightning using seismic data to define the salt-induced anticlinal struc-
Draw SE field, located primarily in section 31, T. 30 S., R. tures (Hill and Bereskin, 1993). The discovery well was the
24 E. (SLB&M), currently has two shut-in gas/condensate Pan American Salt Wash 1, which produced high API grav-
wells operated by Genesis ST Operating, LLC. Gas stream ity oil (55°) and heavy gas-cut brine from the Leadville at
helium weight percentages from both the Federal 1-31 and 8693-8707 feet (Preston, 1963). The completion report also
Evelyn Chambers Gov. 1 wells report a 1.42 and 1.40 wt % documented good porosity with hydrocarbon-stained vugs
He, respectively (Seneshen and others, 2010). The two gas and vertical fractures throughout the Mississippian section
analyses noted from Seneshen and others (2010) do not reflect (Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining, 2020). Moore (1982)
reservoir gas, therefore they have been excluded from the as- include a 1.80% He analysis taken from a DST during drilling
sociated appendix for this report. However, the analyses may through the Leadville at 8553 feet in their published report.
show a correlation to high-helium gas trends in the area. No The completed Mississippian interval located a few hundred
gas wells from the Lightning Draw SE field were ever tested feet below the 1.80% He DST sample was also tested with a
for helium by the USBM. note that the DST gauged 7000 Mcf of gas per day of “non-
flammable gas.” Typical of many wells drilled through the
Although numerous wells with economic helium shows indi- salt and anhydrite zones of the Paradox, the casing collapsed
cate a potential helium prospect, sour gas is found through- in the Paradox section of this well because of pressure from
out the Lisbon area (Cappa and Rice, 1995), typically in res- salt flowage. The well produced 55,961 barrels and 1.2 Bcf of
ervoirs within the Leadville Limestone below the salt and natural gas during its three-year producing life (Utah Divi-
hydrocarbon-productive Paradox Formation (figure 20). Sour sion of Oil, Gas and Mining, 2020). Efforts to re-complete
gas generally forms where hydrocarbon is exposed to large in pursuit of shallower shows were unsuccessful and the well
accumulations of evaporites and from thermal sulfate reduc- was subsequently plugged and abandoned. Although the high
tion at depth during maximum burial (Cappa and Rice, 1995; helium concentration recorded here may be encouraging, the
Nuccio and Condon, 1996). Not only is H2S a poisonous gas, helium is likely dissolved in the oil, which may be respon-
it is capital-intensive to remove from the gas stream and is sible for the high-helium gas percentage and may not be an
also highly corrosive to steel equipment, causing operational adequate representation of the reservoir potential.
problems during production (Parker and others, 2011). With-
out significant helium concentrations, above those document- Five wells at Salt Wash, all located within the center of T.
ed in this report to make extraction of helium economic, this 23 S., R. 17 E. (SLB&M), recorded helium-rich gas ranging
play has a low potential for direct helium exploration. The from a high of 1.80% to 0.78% He. All the helium tests were
helium gas found at Lisbon will remain a potentially profit- from nitrogen-dominated (~78% N2) low-Btu gas streams
able component to the carbon dioxide-rich natural gas stream (Stowe, 1972; Moore and Sigler, 1987).
for regional operators connected to the Lisbon gas processing
plant (figure 16). The Marland Oil Co. well #1 was drilled in 1926 in section
35, T. 21 S., R. 16 E. (SLB&M) 3 miles south of the town of
Salt Wash Area, Grand County Green River in an area known for carbon dioxide leaks to
the surface through low-temperature springs, seeps, geysers,
The Salt Wash helium play is located a few miles east of the and abandoned oil wells (Heath and others, 2009). The Mar-
Green River and about 15 miles south of the town of Green land well recorded “several flows of a non-flammable gas”
River in the northern Paradox Basin, regionally known as the on submitted drilling reports (Utah Division of Oil, Gas and
Paradox fold-and-fault belt (figures 25 and 26). Incorporat- Mining, 2020). The operator reported that samples of the gas
were sent to the “Ft. Worth plant of the Helium Division for analyses were from the Morrison Formation. Many sub-
analysis,” though no documented helium test could be found economic (< 0.30% He) helium samples have been record-
for this well. The U.S. Helium Production Plant No. 1 in Ft. ed in the stratigraphically higher Cretaceous Dakota Sand-
Worth, Texas, was designed by the Linde Air Products Com- stone throughout the San Arroyo field area from both Utah
pany in 1918 and completed in 1921 by the U.S. Department and Colorado (figure 1). Most of the wells that sourced and
of the Navy (National Research Council, 2000). The plant documented spot samples of helium have been plugged and
consisted of a laboratory, a separation and compression fa- abandoned (Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining, 2020).
cility, a helium cylinder storage facility, a pressure reducer
house, and a pumphouse. This early 20th century helium Utah Gas Corp (UGC) currently recovers crude and purified
plant was the second helium-extraction facility in the United helium from over 700 natural gas wells across 250,000 acres
States and a key component of the United States Strategic of mineral leasehold within the San Arroyo field area along
Materials Program. the western margin of the Piceance Basin between Utah and
Colorado (figure 8) (Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining,
San Arroyo Area, Grand County 2020; Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission,
2020). Helium is processed, along with crude oil, field con-
The San Arroyo area is geographically located along the densate, and natural gas at UGC’s processing plants located
Book Cliffs escarpment, which forms the topographic and near Rangely and Mack, Colorado (plate 1).
structural boundary between the Uinta and Paradox Basin
(figure 8) (Hill and Bereskin, 1993). The San Arroyo play
fairway has a northeast orientation that extends from the Temple Springs Prospect, Emery County
northeast corner of Grand County, Utah, into Mesa, Gar-
field, and Rio Blanco Counties of Colorado before an abrupt The San Rafael Swell (figure 8) in Emery County is a
end on the southern edge of the Douglas Creek Arch near Laramide-age basement-involved structure (figure 9) that
Rangely, Colorado (plate 1). On the Utah side, the San Ar- consists of over 11,000 feet of sedimentary strata ranging in
royo helium play includes helium spot samples analyzed age from Cambrian to Cretaceous and includes marine, fluvi-
from five contiguous, northerly plunging natural gas fields: al, eolian, and continental deposits overlying the basal Cam-
San Arroyo, Bar X, Bryson Canyon, Stateline, and Westwa- brian Tintic Quartzite and Precambrian granite and schist
ter (Wood and Chidsey, 2015). Historically, the San Arroyo (Bartsch-Winkler and others, 1990; Condon, 1995; Allis and
field has been the most successful with 174.6 Bcf cumula- others, 2001). The northeast-oriented San Rafael Swell is
tive gas production through 2018. Together the group has part of an older anticlinal feature known as the Emery uplift
produced 319.4 Bcf of natural gas (Utah Division of Oil, Gas (figure 12), a buried, northwest-trending Paleozoic structure
and Mining, 2020). that transects the northern and central part of the San Rafael
Swell (Baars and Stevenson, 1981; Bartsch-Winkler and oth-
These fields produce non-associated gas from sandstone in- ers, 1990). The San Rafael Desert on the eastern flank of the
tervals in the Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone and Buckhorn San Rafael uplift includes ~1080 square miles of sparsely ex-
Conglomerate Member of the Cedar Mountain Formation, plored lands with roughly one dry hole per 15 square miles.
the Late Jurassic Brushy Basin and Salt Wash Members of The area is bisected by at least two major high-angle faults
the Morrison Formation, and the Middle Jurassic Entrada (plate 1) with a northwest-southeast orientation observable
Sandstone (figure 21). Small quantities of oil have been pro- in both well log correlation and publicly available, regional
duced from the Cretaceous Mancos Shale from several wells aeromagnetic surveys (Sims and others, 2008). Much of the
(Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining, 2020), and minor exploration work was done in the 1950s and 1960s by ma-
amounts of natural gas have been produced from the Cre- jor oil companies (e.g., Chevron, Humble, Mobil, Shell, and
taceous Castlegate Sandstone farther up section. Of these Texaco) and a variety of independents (Doelling and others,
stratigraphic intervals, the Jurassic Morrison and Entrada 2015; Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining, 2020). Many of
are the primary helium-bearing reservoir rocks in the San these wells were cored, and it was common for multiple drill
Arroyo play fairway, with the Salt Wash Member a well- stem tests to be run while drilling (figure 24).
known source of uranium throughout the Colorado Plateau
(figure 8) (Shoemaker, 1955; Gloyn and others, 2003; Barton Uranium-vanadium ore deposits (figure 8) and fault-bound-
and others, 2018). ed uraniferous breccia pipe structures are well documented
within the nearby Temple Mountain district of Emery County
Eleven wells are on the Utah side in the San Arroyo play (Shoemaker, 1955; Hawley and others, 1965, 1968; Bartsch-
fairway with economic helium concentrations ranging Winkler and others, 1990; Chenoweth, 1990). The presence
from 0.30% to 1.0% He (Stowe, 1972; Moore and Sigler, of large volumes of uraniferous ore deposits, asphaltic resi-
1987; Gage and Driskill, 2005). Nine of these helium tests due and dead oil staining in the gas column (Utah Division
came from the Entrada Sandstone in low-Btu gas streams of Oil, Gas and Mining, 2020), and low-temperature springs
with significant nitrogen (~25% N2) and carbon dioxide with associated mineralization along northwest-oriented, sur-
(~20% CO2) shows. The other two documented helium face fault ruptures (Heath and others, 2009) within proxim-
ity to the Texaco helium discovery well indicate a significant is an intriguing target at a time when pure play helium explo-
interplay of volcanogenic, thermogenic, and hydrodynamic ration is gaining economic interest.
controls of several kinds.
Woodside Dome Field, Emery County
According to Hawley and others (1965, 1968), the most likely
source of mineralization and economic roll-front ore deposits Woodside gas field, also known as Woodside Dome or Wood-
in the San Rafael Swell and surrounding area is from hydro- side Anticline (Campbell and Bacon, 1976), is geographically
thermal solution or formational water derived from magmatic located in T. 18−19 S. and R. 13−14 E. (SLB&M), between the
sources, coeval with the Laramide orogeny. Hawley and oth- north end of the San Rafael Swell to the west and the Book
ers (1968) postulate that the same ore-forming solutions are Cliffs escarpment to the east (plate 1). The field is immediate-
responsible for the collapse structures that act as conduits for ly west of U.S. Highway 6 between the towns of Green River
mineral-rich groundwater to permeate deeper formations. and Wellington. The Woodside helium play has historically
It seems reasonable that the helium-rich gas found at depth recorded low-methane, carbon dioxide- and nitrogen-rich gas
in the San Rafael Desert is at least partially influenced by primarily from the Permian Black Box Dolomite (formerly
near-surface, uranium-charged groundwater sourced from named the Kaibab Limestone in the San Rafael Swell area)
the breakdown of ore bodies within thick accumulations of (Preston, 1961; Stowe, 1972; Welsh and others, 1979; Hill
Permian- and Triassic-age sedimentary rock. Further geo- and Bereskin, 1993; Condon, 1997). Moore (1982) documents
chemical analysis beyond the scope of this paper would be additional significant nitrogen and carbon dioxide shows in
required to test this hypothesis. the Pennsylvanian Hermosa Group, the Triassic Chinle and
Moenkopi Formations, and the Jurassic Entrada Formation
The Texaco Temple Springs Unit 1 well drilled in late 1959 (figure 20).
and early 1960, in section 14, T. 25 S., R. 13 E. (SLB&M),
found predominantly nitrogen (97.2% N2) gas with a helium Woodside Dome is one of the larger subsidiary folds asso-
component of 2.77% from DST #6 at a depth of 4670 feet ciated with the Laramide episode of deformation along the
(figure 24) in a shaly dolomite interval of the Upper Devo- San Rafael anticline, which forms the northwest edge of the
nian Elbert Formation (figure 20). The test flowed at 90 psi Paradox Basin (Bartsch-Winkler, 1990). The asymmetric
through a 1-inch choke and recorded a “very strong blow” structure of Woodside Dome trends in a north-south orienta-
with a recovery of 2387 Mcf of inert gas that “would not tion along the eastern flank of the north-plunging end of the
burn” and 220 feet of brackish groundwater (Utah Division San Rafael Swell (figure 8) (Hill and Bereskin, 1993; Con-
of Oil, Gas and Mining, 2020). Ammonium in clays can be don, 1995). The area of closure is roughly 12,800 acres, with
released by interaction with brines, and when groundwater maximum structural relief of 800 feet (Gloyn and others,
with dissolved ammonium becomes oxidized it generates ni- 2001). The western limb terminates along a west-dipping,
trogen gas (Brown, 2017). The helium-bearing nitrogen-rich basement-involved reverse fault (Preston, 1961).
gas and uraniferous petroleum residue described by Hawley
and others (1965, 1968) may indicate that the disintegration of By executive order, Woodside Dome was set aside as the
nitrogenous organic compounds by alpha radiation (Bell and United States Helium Reserve #1 in March of 1924 (Dobbin,
others, 1940) plays a part in the high-helium gas found below 1935) after the Utah Oil Refining 1 Fitzhugh (Woodside 1
the San Rafael Desert. Fitzhugh) discovery well in SWSE section 12, T. 19 S., R. 13
E. (SLB&M) encountered 1.33% He at a depth of 3120 feet,
Although the Temple Springs helium discovery well was in a nitrogen-rich (68.1% N2) gas stream with a significant
drilled and abandoned as a dry hole, this result and the 1.47% carbon dioxide component (28.4% CO2) from the Black Box
He test from the overlying Mississippian Leadville Limestone Dolomite (Preston, 1961; Moore and Sigler, 1987). The well
prospect 20 miles to the east at Bowknot, have piqued the inter- reached a depth of 3375 feet and was completed as a shut-in
est of helium pure play explorers such as Tacitus Corporation, helium gas well in 1924. Reports in the well file note that
Twin Bridges Resources, and North American Helium (NAH gas samples were sent to government officials in Washington,
Utah, LLC). Much of state trust lands and BLM acreage in D.C., and plans to plug and abandon the well soon followed.
this area is currently leased by these operators. In August 2019, This discovery well never produced marketable helium and
four applications for permits to drill on BLM lands surround- further exploration for hydrocarbons continued on the struc-
ing the 1959 discovery well were recorded by the Utah Divi- ture (Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining, 2020).
sion of Oil, Gas and Mining and the Moab BLM field office.
In 1962, Humble Oil & Refining Company drilled the Wood-
Temple Springs is a significant helium prospect with further side Dome Unit #1 well (API 43-015-10505) in the SESE of
exploration needed to define the geographic extent of the section 12, T. 19 S., R. 13 E. (SLB&M), to test several mem-
play. The negligible carbon dioxide and low methane content bers of the deeper Paleozoic formations for oil and gas. The
found in the gas stream at Temple Springs is encouraging for Unit #1 well penetrated the Cambrian Tintic Quartzite at a
further helium exploration and development in the area. The depth of 8431 feet and ran multiple DSTs in the Mississippi-
Devonian-Mississippian Emery County helium play fairway an, Pennsylvanian, and Lower Permian sections before being
abandoned as a dry hole (Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Min- “wet” and the well was shut-in pending evaluation for deep-
ing, 2020). Although no helium sample documentation can be ening to the Paradox Formation or operations to plug-and-
found within the UDOGM well file, Moore and Sigler (1987) abandon the location. To date, no helium has yet to be sold
documented a helium show of 0.30% from the uppermost from this perspective play.
Pennsylvanian Hermosa Group and 1.03% from the “lower
Cutler beds” of the Permian Cutler Formation, (formerly the Wildcat Helium Prospects
Elephant Canyon Formation in the northwestern part of the
Paradox Basin [Condon, 1997]). Several wildcat oil and gas exploration wells have encountered
helium in Utah (see appendix). To the extent that it has been
Holly Resources Corporation re-entered the Unit #1 well in judged reasonable to do so, several of these wells have been
1969 to a total depth of 3800 feet and renamed it the Fed- included in the discussion of nearby helium-bearing fields and
eral #44-12 well. The drilling report for the Federal #44- play fairways that exhibit similar geology. A brief description of
12 well documents three perforation stages, all within the events and analysis is discussed below from significant outliers.
Permian Kaibab Formation, also known locally as the Black
Box Dolomite (Welsh and others, 1979; Condon, 1997), In 1971, Kimbark Operating drilled the Fed. Fish Creek 1
which found a “heavy stream of salt water.” Issues occurred well in section 22, T. 38 S., R. 20 E. (SLB&M), San Juan
downhole with a leaking bridge plug and the well was im- County, on the Comb Ridge Monocline positioned along the
mediately plugged and abandoned (Utah Division of Oil, eastern flank of the Monument Upward and in the helium
Gas and Mining, 2020). No mention of a helium test was play fairway of the Mississippian Leadville Limestone (fig-
given in the well file, but the date and formation of a spot ures 25 and 26). This well had a significant helium show
sample of 1.51% from a nitrogen- and carbon dioxide-rich of 1.34% from a natural gas stream (53.8% CH4, 27.3% N2)
(64.4% N2 and 33.0% CO2) gas stream from the Permian sourced from the Pennsylvanian Paradox Formation Ismay-
Kaibab equivalent from Moore and Sigler (1987) match the Desert Creek interval (figure 20) at a depth of 2050 feet. The
UDOGM drilling report and further verified the helium po- helium discovery well was drilled to a total depth of 3610
tential at Woodside. feet in the Mississippian Leadville Limestone and aban-
doned as a dry hole (Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining,
In 2007, Bill Barrett Corp. (BBC) drilled the Woodside #1 2020). The Fish Creek 1 well is now located inside the Shash
(API 43-015-30701) in the SESE of section 12, T. 19 S., R. 13 Jaa Unit of the Bears Ears National Monument (plate 1). He-
E. (SLB&M) to test several members of the Pennsylvanian lium exploration on the steep eastern limb of the Monument
Paradox Formation and the deeper Mississippian section for Upwarp to the east and southeast of this discovery well is
hydrocarbons. BBC completed a gas well between intervals necessary and encouraged.
5010 and 5672 feet, but the well was subsequently shut-in
upon completion due to lack of pipeline access. Recent inter- In 1963, Texas Pacific Coal & Oil Co. drilled and abandoned
est in pure play helium exploration resulted in the Woodside the USA B 1 well as a dry hole in section 9, T. 35 S., R. 25 E.
Dome #1 transfer of operatorship from BBC to Twin Bridges, (SLB&M), San Juan County. Drilling reports submitted to
and then to IACX Energy, LLC in the spring of 2013 (Utah UDOGM indicate multiple drill stem tests had been recov-
Division of Oil, Gas and Mining, 2020). ered from the Devonian-Mississippian section. The depth of
DST #1 correlates with the 0.4% He analysis from the Lead-
IACX permitted the Woodside Dome 2 helium well (API 43- ville Limestone reported by Moore and Sigler (1987) from
015-30766) later in 2013, with the survey stake 30 feet north a depth of 7034 feet. The gas analysis documented a low-
of the Woodside #1 well. The helium prospect was drilled methane, carbon dioxide-rich (88.6% CO2) gas stream (Utah
into the Permian Black Box Dolomite to a depth of 3327 feet. Division of Oil, Gas and Mining, 2020).
UDOGM well file notes indicate the helium well was plugged
back to 3290 feet and completed openhole from 3161 to 3265 The most westerly outlier, the Escalante Unit 2 well, was
feet within the Black Box Dolomite. Publicly available gam- drilled in the SESW section 29, T. 32 S., R. 3 E. (SLB&M) in
ma ray-sonic logs indicate that the completed interval for Garfield County to a depth of 3878 feet by Phillips Petroleum
the helium prospect well was in a zone of high radioactivity Company. Submitted drilling reports from 1961 indicate
(Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining, 2020). This validates “continuous flow of non-flammable gas” beginning at 1360
work done by Bell and others (1940) who note that zones feet while coring. A partial gas analysis at a depth of 1606 feet
of impurity within the Kaibab Limestone elsewhere on the reported 89.4% CO2 and 0.082% He. At a depth of 2260 feet,
Colorado Plateau are highly radioactive. At the time of this a 0.30% He spot sample from the Triassic Moenkopi Forma-
report no gas analysis or production has been verified and the tion (figure 20) was taken while drilling (Utah Division of
potential helium well remains shut-in. Oil, Gas and Mining, 2020). The USBM database shows a
similar helium test from a carbon dioxide-rich (93.1% CO2)
The Woodside Dome 3 well was permitted and drilled by gas stream of the Mississippian Leadville Limestone, but fur-
IACX into the Permian Kaibab equivalent to a depth of 3160 ther study of log tops submitted with the completion report
feet in late 2018. The Black Box Dolomite was found to be indicate this analysis was likely from the Permian section.
CONCLUSIONS dynamics of a prospective helium play is critical. Dissolved

helium in migrating groundwater will exsolve from the liquid
Helium is a rare and exhaustible resource found in recover- phase at lower reservoir temperatures and pressures, which
able quantities during natural gas production in very few may help to explain the occurrence of high-helium gas ac-
gas fields around the world, many of which are nearing cumulations in some shallow reservoirs along basin-uplift
depletion. In the United States, helium can be a profitable transitional areas.
byproduct during the extraction and processing of natural
gas from proven helium-rich conventional gas fields. It is The highest helium concentrations in Utah are found be-
likely that billions of cubic feet of critically important and neath shallow structural traps within the underpressured
valuable helium gas are wasted annually during the pro- Jurassic Entrada Sandstone reservoir at a depth of ~1000
duction of natural gas. The peculiar properties of helium feet. Significant economic helium potential may exist with-
(e.g., light weight, small size, chemically inert, ultra-cool in the extensive, yet relatively unexplored Devonian-Mis-
liquid temperature, and highly diffusive) make it an ele- sissippian reservoirs of the Elbert Formation, Ouray Lime-
ment that can be used in a variety of commercial, indus- stone, and Leadville Limestone. This helium play contains
trial, medical, defense, and research applications as both a nearly 40% of the wells with helium concentrations over
liquid and a gas. Continued demand for helium will depend 0.30% in the gas stream, with the majority sourced from
on a range of factors, but for many cutting-edge technolo- carbonate reservoirs of the Leadville Limestone. Trapped
gies and medical diagnostic applications helium is unique and separated from methane dilution from the hydrocarbon-
and has no known replacement. rich Pennsylvanian section by multiple layers of salt and
bedded anhydrite, the Devonian-Mississippian helium play
fairway encompasses much of southeastern Utah. On the
Since 1962, the federal government has maintained the only Navajo Nation farther south, the Boundary Butte field area
significant long-term, large-scale storage facility and pipeline has significant helium shows from analyses taken within
for crude helium. The Bush Dome reservoir and federal stor- clastic reservoirs of the Paradox Formation, as well as high-
age facility in the Cliffside gas field near Amarillo, Texas, is helium gas stratigraphically lower in the Devonian Ouray
the single-most important depository of helium in the world. Limestone. Laterally and vertically sealed arkosic granite
A 1996 legislative ruling for the federal government to di- wash of the Permian Cutler Group has recorded significant
vest of all helium assets by fall 2021 is nearing completion. helium shows along the southwestern flank of the Uncom-
Without further helium exploration in the United States, this pahgre uplift on the Colorado side, yet remains almost en-
critical resource will become increasingly scarce, creating a tirely unexplored in Utah.
potentially volatile industry as we depend on fragile overseas
supply lines to fulfill our increasing helium demand.
In the immediate future and with the availability of portable,
small-scale helium recovery units and truck-mounted ship-
Helium occurrences throughout Utah and across the Colorado ping containers for simplified transportation, non-flammable
Plateau have been influenced by a combination of mantle and gas streams with a significant helium component (1.0%−7.0%
crustal processes. Helium migration initiates with the alpha He) are likely to be the near-term focus of pure play helium
decay of uranium and thorium from mineral grains. Recrys- exploration in Utah. However, gas fields with significant
tallization and diffusion concentrate helium into pore water methane production in areas where helium is likely should
and groundwater over tens to hundreds of million years. Mi- also be explored. With natural gas prices lingering in a mar-
grating volcanogenic and thermogenic gases sweep helium ginally economic range for the foreseeable future, recovery
and nitrogen from old pore water. Recrystallization of acidic of helium might make sense for improving the economics of
gases into solid minerals over long migration distances helps natural gas wells.
to concentrate helium and nitrogen in the gas phase. Thus, the
longer the migration duration the more nitrogen- and helium-
rich the gas.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Helium-rich gas in Utah is not limited to areas of proven oil
and gas production or reservoir rock of a particular age or Numerous discussions with, and comments from my co-au-
type. Carbon dioxide and nitrogen may be significant carrier thor, Marc Eckels, have been invaluable. We are incredibly
gases for helium in the subsurface. Due to significant helium grateful for detailed comments and critical reviews by Dr.
dilution by methane generation, helium is not typically found Alton Brown, Dr. David Seneshen, Michael Vanden Berg,
in basin centers where most hydrocarbons are produced. In and Tom Chidsey (Chids), which considerably improved this
general, Paleozoic rocks typically will have had more time publication. A special thank you to the Utah School and In-
to generate and collect more helium than younger rocks, but stitutional Trust Lands Administration and Utah Geological
this relationship is based on the older (Paleozoic) helium- and Survey who funded and published this contribution.
nitrogen-rich groundwater that fills the pore spaces rather
than the age of the rock itself. Thus, understanding the hydro-
REFERENCES Bell, K.G., Goodman, C., and Whitehead, W.L., 1940, Radio-
activity of sedimentary rocks and associated petroleum:
Allis, R.G., Chidsey, T.C., Jr., Gwynn, J.W., Morgan, C., White, American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin,
S., Adams, M., Moore, J., 2001, Natural CO2 reservoirs on v. 24, no. 9, p. 1529–1547.
the Colorado Plateau and southern Rocky Mountains― Bradley, G.A., 1975, Lisbon Field, Utah, in Four Corners
Candidates for CO2 sequestration, in Proceedings of the Geological Society Guidebook, 8th Field Conference,
1st National Conference on CO2 Sequestration, DOE Canyonlands Country, p. 277–278.
NETL, Washington, D.C., May 14–17, 2001.
Brennan, S.T., East, J.A., Dennen, K.O., Jahediesfanjani, H.,
Allis, R.G., Chidsey, T.C., Jr., Morgan, C., Moore, J., and and Varela, B., 2018, Helium concentrations in United
White, S.P., 2003, CO2 sequestration potential beneath States well: U.S. Geological Survey Provisional Online
large power plants in the Colorado Plateau―Southern Database, https://www.usgs.gov/atom/71763, accessed
Rocky Mountain region, USA, in Proceedings of the 2nd October 2019.
Annual Conference on Carbon Sequestration, Alexan-
Broadhead, R., 2005, Helium in New Mexico―geologic dis-
dria, VA, May 5–8, 2003.
tribution, resource demand, and exploration possibili-
Anderson, C.C., and Hinson, H.H., 1951, Helium-bearing natu- ties: New Mexico Geology, v. 27, no. 4, p. 93–101.
ral gases of the United States―Analyses and analytical
Brown, A.A., 2005, Origin of high helium concentrations in
methods: U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin, no. 486, 141 p.
dry gas by water fractionation: American Association
Anderson, D.L., 1998, The helium paradoxes: in Proceedings of Petroleum Geologists Search and Discovery Article
of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States #90043, 2005, Posted October 29, 2010, Digital Program
of America, v. 95, no. 9, p. 4822–4827. Abstracts from AAPG Research Conference, Calgary,
Anderson, D.L., 2007, Noble gas isotopes―Isotope Ratios: Alberta, Canada, June 18, 2005.
in New Theory of the Earth: Seismological Laboratory, Brown, A.A., 2010, Formation of High Helium Gases―A
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, p. 198–210. Guide for Explorationists*: American Association of
Anderson, S.T., 2017, Economics, Helium, and the U.S. Fed- Petroleum Geologists Search and Discovery Article
eral Helium Reserve―Summary and Outlook: Natu- #80115, 2010, Posted October 29, 2010, *Adapted from
ral Resources Research, v. 27, no. 4, p. 455–477 (doi: poster presentation at AAPG Convention, New Orleans,
10.1007/S11053-017-9359-y). Louisiana, April 11–14, 2010.
Baars, D.L., 1966, Pre-Pennsylvanian paleotectonics―Key to Brown, A.A., 2017, Possible origins for low thermal matu-
basin evolution and petroleum occurrences in the Paradox rity, high-nitrogen natural gases*: American Association
Basin, Utah and Colorado: Bulletin of the American Asso- of Petroleum Geologists Search and Discovery Article
ciation of Petroleum Geologists, v. 50, no. 10, p. 2082–2111. #42065, 2017, Posted May 1, 2017, *Adapted from poster
presentation at AAPG Annual Convention and Exhibi-
Baars, D.L., and Stevenson, G.M., 1981, Tectonic evolution tion, Houston, Texas, April 2–5, 2017.
of western Colorado and eastern Utah: in New Mexico
Geological Society Guidebook, 32nd Field Conference, Brown, A.A., 2019, Origin of helium and nitrogen in the Pan-
Western Slope Colorado, 1981, p. 105–112. handle-Hugoton field of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas,
United States: American Association of Petroleum Geol-
Bahl, S., 2019, Helium Macro View Update―Short-term ogists Bulletin, v. 103, no. 2 (February 2019), p. 369–403
market tightens: published consultant’s report for Edi- (doi: 10.1306/07111817343).
son Investment Research Limited (Edison), 21 p. Online,
https://www.edisongroup.com/sector-report/helium- Campbell, J.A., and Bacon, R.S., 1976, Penetration chart of
macro-view/, accessed November 4, 2019. Utah oil and gas fields: Utah Geological and Mineral
Survey Oil and Gas Fields Studies, no. 14, https://doi.
Ballentine, C.J, and Burnard, P.G., 2002, Production, release, org/10.34191/OG-14.
and transport of noble gases in the continental crust: Re-
views in Mineralogy and Geochemistry, v. 47, p. 481–538. Campbell, J.A., 1978, Carbon dioxide resources of Utah: Utah
Geological and Mineral Survey Report of Investigation
Barton, M.D., Barton, I.F., and Thorson, J.P., 2018, Paleofluid 125, 26 p., https://doi.org/10.34191/RI-125.
Flow in the Paradox Basin―Introduction: 2018 Society
of Economic Geologists Guidebook Series, v. 59, 12 p. Campbell, J.A., and U.S. Geological Survey, 1981, Summary of
Paleozoic stratigraphy and history of western Colorado and
Bartsch-Winkler, S., Dickerson, R.P., Barton, H.N., McCaf- eastern Utah: New Mexico Geological Society Guidebook,
ferty, A.E., Grauch, V.J.S., Koyuncu, H., Lee, K., and 32nd Field Conference, Western Slope Colorado, p. 81–87.
Duval, J.S., 1990, Mineral resources of the San Rafael
Swell Wilderness Study Areas, including Muddy Creek, Cappa, J.A., and Rice, D.D., 1995, Carbon dioxide in Missis-
Crack Canyon, San Rafael Reef, Mexican Mountain, and sippian rocks of the Paradox Basin and adjacent areas,
Sids Mountain Wilderness Study Areas, Emery County, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona: U.S. Geo-
Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1752, 56 p. logical Survey Bulletin 2000−H, 21 p.
Case, J.E., 1991, Geologic map of the northwestern part of Davis, G.H., and Bump, A.P., 2009, Structural geologic evo-
the Uncompahgre Uplift, Grand County, Utah, and Mesa lution of the Colorado Plateau: The Geological Society of
County, Colorado, with emphasis on Proterozoic rocks― America Memoir 204, 26 p.
To accompany map I-2088: U.S. Geological Survey Mis- Dobbin, C.E., 1935, Geology of natural gases rich in helium,
cellaneous Investigations Series Map I−2088, 16 p. pam- nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen sulphide, in Nat-
phlet, scale 1:24,000. ural gases of North America: AAPG Memoir, no. 9, p.
Casey, T.A.L., 1983, Helium potential of the Four Corners 1957–1969.
area, in Fassett, J.E., editor, Oil and gas fields of the Four Doelling, H.H., Kuehne, P.A., Willis, G.C., and Elher, J.B.,
Corners area, v. 3, Four Corners Geological Society, p. 2015, Geologic Map of the San Rafael Desert 30' x 60'
749−754. Quadrangle, Emery and Grand Counties, Utah: Utah
Chamberlin, R.T., 1908, The gases in rocks―Contributions Geological Survey Map 267DM, 24 p. pamphlet, scale
to cosmogony and the fundamental problems of geology: 1:62,500, https://doi.org/10.34191/M-267DM.
Carnegie Institution of Washington, no. 106, 80 p. Driskill, D.L., 2008, Analyses of natural gases, 2005−2007:
Chenoweth, W.L., 1990, A History of Uranium Production Bureau of Land Management Technical Note 427, U.S.
in Utah, in Allison, M.L., editor, Energy and mineral Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado, 208 p.
resources of Utah: Salt Lake City, Utah Geological As- Eisinger, C., and Lowe, M., 1999, A summary of the ground-
sociation Publication 18, p. 113–124. water resources and geohydrology of Grand County,
Chidsey, T.C., Jr., editor, 2016a, Major oil plays in Utah and Utah: Utah Geological Survey Circular 99, 19 p., https://
vicinity: Utah Geological Survey Bulletin 137, 293 p., doi.org/10.34191/C-99.
https://doi.org/10.34191/B-137. Ellis, L., 2019, Helium in natural gas and thermochemical
Chidsey, T.C., Jr., editor, 2016b, Paleozoic shale-gas re- sulfate reduction (TSR) influence: American Association
sources of the Colorado Plateau and eastern Great Ba- of Petroleum Geologists Search and Discovery Article
sin, Utah―Multiple frontier exploration opportunities: #90337, Posted March 15, 2019, Digital Program Ab-
Utah Geological Survey Bulletin 136, 241 p., https://doi. stracts from AAPG Middle East Region GTW, Dubai,
org/10.34191/B-136. UAE, February 11−13, 2019.
Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2019, Gage, B.D., and Driskill, D.L., 1998, Analyses of natural
Public Well File and Monthly Production Reports: On- gases, 1996-1997: Bureau of Land Management Techni-
line, https://cogcc.state.co.us/#/home, accessed January cal Note 404, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Denver,
through May 2020. Colorado, 71 p.
Condon, S.M., 1995, Geology of Pre-Pennsylvanian Rocks in Gage, B.D., and Driskill, D.L., 2003, Analyses of natural
the Paradox Basin and adjacent areas, southeastern Utah gases, 1998-2001: Bureau of Land Management Techni-
and southwestern Colorado―Evolution of Sedimentary cal Note 412, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Denver,
Basins−Paradox Basin: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin Colorado. 173 p.
2000−G, 53 p. Gage, B.D., and Driskill, D.L., 2005, Analyses of natural
Condon, S.M., 1997, Geology of the Pennsylvanian and gases, 2002-2004, Bureau of Land Management Techni-
Permian Cutler Group and Permian Kaibab Limestone cal Note 418, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Denver,
in the Paradox Basin, southeastern Utah and south- Colorado. 243 p.
western Colorado―Evolution of Sedimentary Ba- Gilfillan, S.M.V., 2006, Deep magmatic degassing and the
sins−Paradox Basin: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin Colorado Plateau uplift: University of Manchester, Doc-
2000−P, 46 p. toral thesis, 148 p.
Conley, J.N., and Giardina, S., Jr., 1979, Favorable and poten- Gilfillan, S.M.V., Ballentine, C.J., Holland, G., Blagburn, D.,
tially favorable areas for hydrocarbon and geothermal en- Lollar, B.S., Stevens, S., Schoell, M., and Cassidy, M.,
ergy sources in northeastern Arizona: Arizona Geological 2008, The noble gas geochemistry of natural CO2 gas
Survey Oil and Gas Publication OG−28, 56 p. Originally reservoirs from the Colorado Plateau and Rocky Moun-
published as OGCC Report of Investigation RI−7. tain provinces, USA: Geochimica Et Cosmochimica
Craddock, W.H., Blondes, M.S., DeVera, C.A., and Hunt, Acta, v. 72, no. 4, p. 1174–1198.
A.G., 2017, Mantle and crustal gases of the Colorado Pla- Gloyn, R.W., Tabet, D.E., Tripp, B.T., Biship, C.E., Morgan,
teau―Geochemistry, sources, and migration pathways: C.D., Gwynn, J.W., and Blackett, R.E., 2003, Energy,
Geochimica Et Cosmochimica Acta, no. 213, p. 346–374, mineral, and ground-water resources of Carbon and Em-
(doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2017.05.017). ery Counties, Utah: Utah Geological Survey Bulletin
Dane, C.H., 1935, Geology of the Salt Valley Anticline and 132, 161 p., https://doi.org/10.34191/B-132.
adjacent areas, Grand County, Utah: U.S. Geological Grynia, E., and Griffin, P.J., 2016, Helium in Natural
Survey Bulletin 863, 84 p. Gas―Occurrence and Production: Journal of Natural
Gas Engineering, v. 1, no. 2, p. 163–215 (doi: 10.7569/ Keevil, N.B., 1940, Interatomic forces and helium in rocks:
JNGE.2016.692506). Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sci-
Halford, D.T., 2018, Isotopic analyses of helium from wells ences, v. 73, no. 11, p. 311–359.
located in the Four Corners area, southwestern, U.S.: Keevil, N.B., 1943, Radiogenic heat in rocks: The Journal of
Colorado School of Mines, Master’s thesis, 353 p. Geology, v. 51, no. 5, p. 287–300.
Hamak, J.E., and Sigler, S., 1991, Analyses of natural gases, Keevil, N.B., 1941, Helium retentivities of minerals: Ameri-
1986–90: U.S. Bureau of Mines Information Circular can Mineralogist, v. 26, no. 6, p. 403–404.
9301, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, DC, 315 p.
Massol, O., and Rifaat, O., 2018, Phasing out the U.S. Federal
Hamak, J.E., and Gage, B.D., 1992, Analyses of natural Helium Reserve―Policy insights from a world helium
gases, 1991: U.S. Bureau of Mines Information Circular model: Resource and Energy Economics, v. 54 (2018),
9318, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, DC, 97 p. p. 186–211.
Hamak, J., 2017, 2015 Minerals Yearbook―Helium [Advance Moore, B.J., 1976, Helium resources of the United States,
Release]: U.S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook, p. 1973: U.S. Bureau of Mines Information Circular 8708,
32.1–34.8. U.S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, DC, 17 p.
Hanshaw, B.B., and Hill, G.A., 1969, Geochemistry and hydro- Moore, B.J., 1982, Analyses of natural gases, 1917−80: U.S.
dynamics of the Paradox Basin region, Utah, Colorado, Bureau of Mines Information Circular 8870, U.S. Bureau
and New Mexico: Chemical Geology, no. 4, p. 263–294. of Mines, Washington, DC, 1055 p.
Hawley, C.C., Wyant, D.G., and Brooks, D.B., 1965, Geology Moore, B.J., and Sigler, S.M., 1987, Analyses of natural gas-
and uranium deposits of the Temple Mountain District, es, 1917−85: U.S. Bureau of Mines Information Circular
Emery County, Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 9129, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, DC, 1197 p.
1192, 154 p.
Morgan, C.D., 2007, Structure, reservoir characterization,
Hawley, C.C., Robeck, R.C., and Dyer, H. B., 1968, Geology, and carbon dioxide resources of Farnham Dome field,
altered rocks, and ore deposits of the San Rafael Swell, Carbon County, Utah, in Willis, G.C., Hylland, M.D.,
Emery County, Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin Clark, D.L., and Chidsey, T.C., Jr., editors, Central
1239, 115 p. Utah―diverse geology of a dynamic landscape: Utah
Heath, J.E., Lachmar, T.E., Evans, J.P., Kolesar, P.T., and Wil- Geological Association Publication 36, p. 297–310.
liams, A.P., 2009, Hydrogeochemical characterization National Research Council, 2000, The Impact of Selling the
of leaking, carbon dioxide-charged fault zones in east- Federal Helium Reserve. Washington, DC: The National
central Utah, with implications for geologic carbon stor- Academies Press.
age: American Geophysical Union―Geophysical Mono-
National Research Council, 2010, Selling the Nation's Helium
graph Series 183, p. 147–158.
Reserve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Hill, B.G., and Bereskin, S.R., editors, 1993, Oil and gas
Nuccio, V.F., and Condon, S.M., 1996, Burial and thermal
fields of Utah. Utah Geological Association Publication
history of the Paradox basin, Utah and Colorado, and pe-
22, non-paginated.
troleum potential of the Middle Pennsylvanian Paradox
Holloway, J.M., and Dahlgren, R.A., 2002, Nitrogen in Formation―Evolution of Sedimentary Basins−Paradox
rock―Occurrences and biogeochemical implications: Basin: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2000−O, 41 p.
American Geophysical Union―Global Biogeochemical
Office of the Federal Register, 2018, National Archives and
Cycles, v. 16, no. 4, 1118 (doi:10.1029/2002GB001862).
Records Administration―Final list of critical minerals
Hutcheon, I., 1999, Controls on the distribution of non-hydro- 2018: Federal Register, v. 83, no. 97 (May 18, 2018), 83
carbon gases in the Alberta Basin: Bulletin of Canadian FR 23295.
Petroleum Geology, v. 47, no. 4, p. 573−593.
Oil & Gas Journal, 2013, Eastern Utah Harley Dome helium
Jenden, P.D., and Kaplan, I.R., 1989, Analysis of gases in the plant starts up: Oil & Gas Journal, October 17: Online,
Earth's crust: Global Geochemistry Corporation, ch. 9, http://www.ogj.com/articles/2013/10/eastern-utah-har-
44 p. ley-dome-helium-plant-starts-up.html., accessed Octo-
Johnson, E.G., 2012, Helium in northeastern British Colum- ber 2019.
bia, in Geoscience Reports 2013, British Columbia Min- Otis, R.M. and Schneidermann, N., 1997, A process for eval-
istry of Natural Gas Development, p. 45−52. uating exploration prospects: AAPG Bulletin, v. 81, no.
Karlstrom, K., and Humphreys, E., 1998, Persistent influence 7, p. 1087–1109.
of Proterozoic accretionary boundaries in the tectonic Pacheco, N., and Ali, S.F., 2008, Helium resources of the
evolution of southwestern North America―interaction United States, 2007: Bureau of Land Management Tech-
of cratonic grain and mantle modification events: Rocky nical Note 429, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Den-
Mountain Geology, v. 33, no. 2, p. 161–179. ver, CO, 20 p.
Parker, J.W., and Roberts, J.W., 1966, Regional Devonian and Energy Commission for the United Nations International
Mississippian stratigraphy―central Colorado Plateau: Conference on peaceful uses of atomic energy, Geneva,
American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, Switzerland: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper
v. 50, no. 11, p. 2404–2433. 300, 739 p.
Parker, M.E., Northrop, S., Valencia, J.A., Foglesong, R.E., Sugisaki, R., 1987, Behavior and origin of helium, neon, ar-
and Duncan, W.T., 2011, CO2 management at ExxonMo- gon, and nitrogen from active faults: Journal of Geophys-
bil’s LaBarge field, Wyoming, USA: Energy Procedia, v. ical Research, v. 92, no. B12, p. 12,523–12,530.
4 (2011), p. 5455–5470.
Sims, P.K., Saltus, R.W., and Anderson, E.D., 2008, Precam-
Pierce, A.P., Gott, G.B., and Mytton, J.W., 1964, Uranium and brian basement structure map of the continental United
helium in the Panhandle gas field, Texas, and adjacent States—An interpretation of geologic and aeromagnetic
areas: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 454-G, data: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations
57 p. Map 3012, scale 1:8,000,000.
Picard, M.D., and Holland, H.D., 1962, Occurrence and ori- Smith, J.R., Tremain, C.M., and Brchan, C.A., 1991, Oil and
gin of Mississippian gas in Four Corners region: AAPG gas fields map of Colorado: Colorado Geological Survey
Bulletin, v. 46, no. 9, p. 1681–1700. Map Series 26, scale 1:500,000.
Preston, D., editor, 1961, A Symposium of the oil and gas Stowe, C.H., compiler, 1972, Oil and gas production in Utah
fields of Utah: Intermountain Association of Petroleum to 1970: Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Bulletin
Geologists, non-paginated. 94, 179 p., https://doi.org/10.34191/B-94.
Prinzhofer, A., 2013, Noble gas in oil and gas accumulations, Swanson, V.E., 1960, Oil yield and uranium content of
in The Noble Gases as Geochemical Tracers: Springer, black shales: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper
Berlin Heidelberg, p. 225–247. 356−A, 44 p.
Prinzhofer, A., and Battani, A., 2003, Gas isotopes tracing― Toner, R.N., Lynds, R.M., and Stafford, J.E., 2019, Oil and
an important tool for hydrocarbons exploration: Oil & gas map of Wyoming: Wyoming State Geological Survey
Gas Science and Technology, v. 58, no. 2, p. 299–311. Map Series 104, scale 1:500,000, Online, https://www.
Rauzi, S.L., 2003, Review of helium production and potential wsgs.wyo.gov/pubs-maps/gis, accessed October 2019.
in Arizona: Arizona Geological Survey Open-File Re- U.S. Geological Survey, 2015, Energy Geochemistry Database:
port 03-05, 30 p. U.S. Geological Survey Energy Resource Program―Pro-
Reisch, M., 2017, More helium is on the way, in Chemical & visional Database, Online, https://certmapper.cr.usgs.gov/
Engineering News, v. 95, no. 30, p. 22–23. data/apps/geochem-db/, accessed August 2019.
Rocky Mountain Oil Journal, 2019, Operator stakes remote he- U.S. Geological Survey, 2019, Mineral Commodity Sum-
lium tests in central Utah. Denver, CO: Rocky Mountain maries 2019―Helium: U.S. Geological Survey, Min-
Oil Journal, Sept. 13, 2019−Sept. 19, 2019, v. 99, no. 36. eral Commodity Summaries, February 2019, Online,
https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2020/mcs2020.
Rogers, G.S., 1921, Helium-bearing natural gas: U.S. Geo-
pdf, accessed March 2019.
logical Survey Professional Paper 121, 113 p.
―2020, Mineral Commodity Summaries 2020―Heli-
Selley, R.C., and Sonnenberg, S.A., 2015, Elements of Pe-
um: U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Sum-
troleum Geology, Third Edition: Waltham, MA: Aca-
maries, January 2020, Online, https://pubs.usgs.gov/pe-
demic Press.
riodicals/mcs2020/mcs2020.pdf, accessed March 2020.
Seneshen, D., Chidsey, T.C., Jr., Morgan, C.D., Vanden Berg,
Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining, 2020, Public Well File
M.D., 2010, New techniques for new hydrocarbon dis-
and Monthly Production Reports: Online, https://www.
coveries―surface geochemical surveys in the Lisbon
ogm.utah.gov/index.php, accessed January through May
and Lightning Draw Southeast field areas, San Juan
2020.
County, Utah: Utah Geological Survey Miscellaneous
Publication 10-2, 69 p., https://doi.org/10.34191/MP-10-2. Utah Trust Lands Administration, 2019, Public Document
Search―1991-04-22-Final Agency Action: Online,
Seneshen, D., 2018, The surface geochemical expression of
https://trustlands.utah.gov/resources/public-document-
some Utah oil and helium fields [abs]: AAPG ACE 2018,
search/, accessed October 2019.
AAPG Search and Discovery Article #90323, Posted
July 23–25, 2018. Ward, D.E. and Pierce, A.P., 1973, Helium, in United States
Mineral Resources: U.S. Geological Survey Professional
Shoemaker, E.M., 1955, Structural features of the central Col-
Paper 820, p. 285–290.
orado Plateau and their relation to uranium deposits, in
Page, L.R., Stocking, H.E., and Smith, H.B., compilers, Welsh, J.E., Stokes, W.L., and Wardlaw, B.R., 1979, Regional
1956, Contributions to the geology of uranium and tho- stratigraphic relationships of the Permian “Kaibab” or
rium by the United States Geological Survey and Atomic Black Box Dolomite of the Emery High, central Utah, in
Four Corners Geological Society Guidebook, 9th Field

Conference, Permianland, p. 143–149.
Whidden, K.J., Anna, L.O., Pearson, K.M., and Lillis, P.G.,
2012, Assessment of undiscovered oil and gas resources
in the Paradox Basin province, Utah, Colorado, New
Mexico, and Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet
2012–3031, 4 p.
Whidden, K.J., Lillis, P.G., Anna, L.O., Pearson, K.M., and
Dubiel, R.F., 2014, Geology and total petroleum systems
of the Paradox Basin, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico,
and Arizona, in The Mountain Geologist, v. 51, no. 2, p.
119–138.
Willis, G.C., 1994, Geologic map of the Harley Dome quad-
rangle, Grand County, Utah: Utah Geological Survey
Map 157, 18 p. pamphlet, scale 1:24,000, https://doi.
org/10.34191/M-157.
Wood, R.E., and Chidsey, T.C., Jr., 2015, Oil and Gas Fields
Map of Utah: Utah Geological Survey Circular 119, scale
1:700,000, https://doi.org/10.34191/C-119.
Yurkowski, M.M., 2016, Helium in southwestern Saskatch-
ewan―accumulation and geological setting: Saskatche-
wan Ministry of the Economy, Saskatchewan Geological
Survey, Open File Report 2016-1, 20 p. and Microsoft®
Excel® file.
Zartman, R.E., Wasserburg, G.J., and Reynolds, J.H., 1961,
Helium, argon, and carbon in some natural gases: Jour-
nal of Geophysical Research, v. 66, no. 1, p. 277–306.
APPENDIX
Helium gas shows in Utah as of December 2019:
https://ugspub.nr.utah.gov/publications/misc_pubs/mp-174/mp-174.xlsx

Wiseman and Eckels (2020) Proven and Hypothetical Helium Resources in Utah-Mp-174

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wiseman and Eckels (2020) Proven and Hypothetical Helium Resources in Utah-Mp-174

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wiseman and Eckels (2020) Proven and Hypothetical Helium Resources in Utah-Mp-174

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SCHOOL AND INSTITUTIONAL TRUST LANDS ADMINISTRATION Plate 1

Produced in collaboration with Utah Geological Survey Miscellaneous Publication 174

TWIN POWER Lake Ridge

FALLS BANNOCK Tip Top

CASSIA ONEIDA BEAR LAKE

Missouri Douglas Creek

15 S (1.0% He) Jm,

Manti Woodside (2.8% He) Jm,

HARLEY DOME PLANT

19 S (0.66% He) Kcm, 19 S

WAYNE Hanksville NATIONAL MONTROSE

29 S Wilson Canyon Lisbon

MTNS. BEARS EARS 31 S

(SHASH JAA) (1.12% He) TRc,

ESC (0.6% He) Je,

(0.7% He) IPp

(1.5% He) Do (5.31% He) Ml

(8.92% He) TRc, Chimney Rock

(6.05% He) IPh,

BLACK MESA (4.04% He) IPh,

Ml, (4.16% He) Da

Sample Pk Kaibab Formation

MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATION 174

1 Utah Trust Lands Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah

MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATION 174

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

UTAH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

UTAH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Plate 1. Helium-rich natural gas fields of Utah and vicinity

ABSTRACT sylvanian Paradox Formation. In some cases, helium-rich

ern Utah and much of the Colorado Plateau (figure 8) (Conley

Short- and long-distance migration of both thermogenic and

According to Brown (2010), the most likely scenario for non-

CONCLUSIONS dynamics of a prospective helium play is critical. Dissolved

Four Corners Geological Society Guidebook, 9th Field

Helium gas shows in Utah as of December 2019:

You might also like