5 ms·

The US government decided (maybe correctly, IDK) some years ago that their strategic helium reserves were too high (and thus expensive). There were several ann

The US government decided (maybe correctly, IDK) some years ago that their strategic helium reserves were too high (and thus expensive). There were several announcements, a lot of discussion, and a long process before they started selling it. It was also a temporary action, with a well known end-date (that TBH, I never looked at). It had a known and constant small pressure over investments, it wasn't something that destabilized a market.

j-bos 7mo ago
Isn't it like underground? Why would it be expensive?
- atombender 7mo ago
  It wasn't. It was injected into the porous rock at the Bush Dome Reservoir [1], which acted as a natural container of helium. The strategic helium reserve was "expensive" because buying helium for storage was funded by treasury debt, but it was expensive purely only on paper. [1] https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/bush-dome-reservoir-and-cliffside-field-terminal https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/bush-dome-reserv...
  - vel0city 7mo ago
    The Bush Dome Reservoir is a giant underground formation. So yes, it's being stored underground.
    - atombender 7mo ago
      I was replying to the last question: "Why would it be expensive?"
      - NetMageSCW 7mo ago
        The question wasn’t why filling it would be expensive, but why maintaining it once stored would be considered expensive.
        atombender 7mo ago
        I answered that. It wasn't expensive. Building up the stockpile was expensive (but only on paper; financed via treasury debt), but once stored, it required very little maintenance because it was all held underground in porous rock. The only real expense was maintaining the wells.
- phil21 7mo ago
  It was a penny wise and pound foolish political move to pretend to be financially responsible and reduce the deficit by some tiny rounding error on top of a rounding error amount. Basically political bike shedding so elected officials could avoid making any hard or controversial decisions that would have a material impact but maybe upset some folks due to raising taxes or reducing spending.
  - roenxi 7mo ago
    I suppose I'm neutral on the topic of strategic helium reserves; but what aspect of this is supposed to be pound foolish? What exactly is the buffer meant to be for? A strategic petroleum reserve makes a lot of sense, petroleum is part of the food supply chain and it'd be stupid to be in a position where a short disruption could cause people to starve. Not to mention the military implications if an army can't zoom around because the petrol stations run dry for whatever reason. I don't see anything on the list of uses for helium that looks particularly time- and helium- sensitive in the way that a strategic stockpile would help with.
    - procaryote 7mo ago
      The article for example mentions MRI macines, aerospace engineering, fiber optics and semiconductors, so I guess it depends on if you want those things to still be available in a crisis
      - roenxi 7mo ago
        That does sound kinda minor? A worst-case scenario of a month or two without MRI machines or "aerospace engineering", whatever that means doesn't sound particularly scary. And that is making some pretty unrealistic assumptions like there is literally no helium, hospitals don't have private reserves that can last a few months and there are no replacement gasses or alternative options of any sort. And people can make do with limited fibre-optic or semiconductor manufacturing. We have crisises in various computer components every few years (I can think of HDD, RAM & GPU supply shocks over the last few years). Doesn't seem to be a major problem. A couple of months of disruption isn't a strategically interesting event.

j-bos 7mo ago

Isn't it like underground? Why would it be expensive?

atombender 7mo ago
It wasn't. It was injected into the porous rock at the Bush Dome Reservoir [1], which acted as a natural container of helium. The strategic helium reserve was "expensive" because buying helium for storage was funded by treasury debt, but it was expensive purely only on paper. [1] https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/bush-dome-reservoir-and-cliffside-field-terminal https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/bush-dome-reserv...
- vel0city 7mo ago
  The Bush Dome Reservoir is a giant underground formation. So yes, it's being stored underground.
  - atombender 7mo ago
    I was replying to the last question: "Why would it be expensive?"
    - NetMageSCW 7mo ago
      The question wasn’t why filling it would be expensive, but why maintaining it once stored would be considered expensive.
      - atombender 7mo ago
        I answered that. It wasn't expensive. Building up the stockpile was expensive (but only on paper; financed via treasury debt), but once stored, it required very little maintenance because it was all held underground in porous rock. The only real expense was maintaining the wells.
phil21 7mo ago
It was a penny wise and pound foolish political move to pretend to be financially responsible and reduce the deficit by some tiny rounding error on top of a rounding error amount. Basically political bike shedding so elected officials could avoid making any hard or controversial decisions that would have a material impact but maybe upset some folks due to raising taxes or reducing spending.
- roenxi 7mo ago
  I suppose I'm neutral on the topic of strategic helium reserves; but what aspect of this is supposed to be pound foolish? What exactly is the buffer meant to be for? A strategic petroleum reserve makes a lot of sense, petroleum is part of the food supply chain and it'd be stupid to be in a position where a short disruption could cause people to starve. Not to mention the military implications if an army can't zoom around because the petrol stations run dry for whatever reason. I don't see anything on the list of uses for helium that looks particularly time- and helium- sensitive in the way that a strategic stockpile would help with.
  - procaryote 7mo ago
    The article for example mentions MRI macines, aerospace engineering, fiber optics and semiconductors, so I guess it depends on if you want those things to still be available in a crisis
    - roenxi 7mo ago
      That does sound kinda minor? A worst-case scenario of a month or two without MRI machines or "aerospace engineering", whatever that means doesn't sound particularly scary. And that is making some pretty unrealistic assumptions like there is literally no helium, hospitals don't have private reserves that can last a few months and there are no replacement gasses or alternative options of any sort. And people can make do with limited fibre-optic or semiconductor manufacturing. We have crisises in various computer components every few years (I can think of HDD, RAM & GPU supply shocks over the last few years). Doesn't seem to be a major problem. A couple of months of disruption isn't a strategically interesting event.