1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to storage containers. More particularly, the present invention relates to proppant discharge systems wherein proppant can be discharged from the storage container. Additionally, the present invention relates to a process for providing proppant to a well site by the transport and delivery of the proppant containers.
2. Description of Related Art Including Information Disclosed Under 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98.
Hydraulic fracturing is the propagation of fractions in a rock layer caused by the presence of pressurized fluid. Hydraulic fractures may form naturally, in the case of veins or dikes, or may be man-made in order to release petroleum, natural gas, coal seam gas, or other substances for extraction. Fracturing is done from a wellbore drilled into reservoir rock formations. The energy from the injection of a highly-pressurized fracking fluid creates new channels in the rock which can increase the extraction rates and ultimate recovery of fossil fuels. The fracture width is typically maintained after the injection by introducing a proppant into the injected fluid. Proppant is a material, such as grains of sand, ceramic, or other particulates, that prevent the fractures from closing when the injection is stopped.
With the rise of hydraulic fracturing over the past decade, there is a steep climb in proppant demand. Global supplies are currently tight. The number of proppant suppliers worldwide has increased since 2000 from a handful to well over fifty sand, ceramic proppant and resin-coat producers.
By the far the dominant proppant is silica sand, made up of ancient weathered quartz, the most common mineral in the Earth's continental crust. Unlike common sand, which often feels gritty when rubbed between the fingers, sand used as a proppant tends to roll to the touch as a result of its round, spherical shape and tightly-graded particle distribution. Sand quality is a function of both deposit and processing. Grain size is critical, as any given proppant must reliably fall within certain mesh ranges, subject to downhole conditions and completion design. Generally, coarser proppant allows the higher flow capacity due to the larger pore spaces between grains. However, it may break down or crush more readily under stress due to the relatively fewer grain-to-grain contact points to bear the stress often incurred in deep oil- and gas-bearing formations.
Typically, in any hydraulic fracturing operation, a large amount of such proppant is required. Typically, it has been difficult to effectively store the proppant at the fracturing sites. Additionally, it has been found to be rather difficult to effectively transport the proppant to the desired location. Often, proppant is hauled to the desired locations on the back of trucks and is dumped onsite. Under such circumstances, the proppant is often exposed to adverse weather conditions. This will effectively degrade the quality of the proppant during its storage. Additionally, the maintenance of proppant in containers at the hydraulic fracturing site requires a large capital investment in storage facilities. Typically, the unloading of such storage facilities is carried out on a facility-by-facility basis. As such, there is a need to be able to effectively transport the proppant to and store the proppant in a desired location adjacent to the hydraulic fracturing location.
With the development and acceptance of the well stimulation methodology known as “hydraulic fracturing”, a unique logistics challenge has been created in delivering the massive quantities of proppant from domestic sand mines to the wellhead. This logistics challenge affects every stakeholder up-and-down the logistics chain. In particular, this includes sand mine owners, railroads, trans-loading facilities, oil-field service companies, trucking companies and exploration and production companies. The existing method of delivering sand to the consumer requires the use of expensive specialized equipment and a high level of coordination. This makes the process subject to a myriad of problems that disrupt the efficient flow of proppant to the wellhead. The result of utilizing the current method is the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars in largely unnecessary logistics costs.
Sand mines are being rapidly developed all over the United States to satisfy the demand that the “Shale Boom” has created for proppant. Most of the recent mines that have come on-line, or are in varying stages of development, have limited transportation infrastructure to support the export of sand from the sand-pit. As a result, many mines are building rail-spurs that will accommodate up to 100 rail cars or more that can be loaded and staged for transportation to the designated destination. Along with rail-track, these companies are also investing in expensive vertical silo storage facilities to store thousands of tons of proppant. The sand mines are unable to effectively ship proppant to the shale regions without equal fluid trans-loading and storage facilities on the receiving end of the logistics chain. This results in lost revenue and productivity for the mine owner and higher prices for proppant buyers in the destination region.
Railroads are a critical part of the logistics chain required to move proppant from mine to the various shale regions. Due to the lack of rail track and trans-loading facilities in some of these remote regions, the railroad companies must be selective of their customers' delivery locations, and make sure that their customers have the ability to efficiently off-load rail cars. Recently, the railroads have seen the allocated fleet of hopper cars being stranded at those destinations where there is no cost-effective storage option to efficiently off-load those cars. Consequently, there has been a significant opportunity cost that the railroads have been forced to pay. As such, a need has developed for facilitating the ability to quickly and inexpensively off-load proppant from rail cars so as to enable the railroads to improve the velocity, turn-around and revenue-generating capacity of the rail-car fleet.
Limited storage at trans-loading facilities has severely limited many of the current facilities' ability to operate efficiently. Most trans-load facilities are forced to off-load rail hopper cars by bringing in trucks (i.e. pneumatics) along the rail siding, and conveying sand directly from rail to truck. This requires an intense coordination effort on the part of the trans-loader as well as the trucking community. Long truck lines are commonplace, and demurrage fees (i.e. waiting time charged by trucking companies) amount to hundreds of millions of dollars nationwide. As such, the trans-loader is not able to fully realize the utilization of conveying and other material handling equipment. The throughput of these trans-loading terminals severely reduces costing of the terminal meaningful revenue.
Additionally, optimal trans-load terminal locations are immobile and not able to move from one area of the shale pay to another. Investors in immobile silo and flat storage facilities can see the utilization and value of those investments tumble. A potential loss of the investment in such immobile silos can often scare investment capital away from these types of future projects so as to further exacerbate the logistics chain problem. As such, a need has developed for a portable, inexpensive storage and delivery solution for proppant that would help revive the capital needed to improve the facilities and maximize the revenue-generating potential of existing and new trans-load and storage facilities.
The lack of efficient trans-load and storage facilities in shale regions have taken a heavy toll on the efficiencies of trucking fleets. While trucking companies have typically charged demurrage fees to compensate for the waiting time and lost productivity, those types of charges are under significant resistance from the customer base. When trucking companies are required to wait in line to be loaded, or wait at a well-site to be unloaded, the number of turns that the equipment can make in a day is severely limited. Rather than turning two or three loads in a single day, the trucks more typically make one trip per day, and very commonly may make one delivery every two or three days. This lack of efficient fleet utilization results in the trucking company having to buy more equipment and hire more drivers to move the same amount of material than would be necessary. As such, it would be desirable to eliminate demurrage charges and to present the opportunity for trucking companies to become more profitable while making smaller investments in equipment.
Service companies (such as fracturing companies) are held captive by the current proppant delivery process. This is the result of inefficient trans-load facilities and pneumatic (bulk) truck deliveries. The service company cannot frac a well if it does not have a supply of proppant. It is widely known that the problems surrounding the efficient delivery of proppant to the well-site is one of the primary challenges to the service companies in successfully completing a frac job. Pressure pumps, coiled tubing and other well stimulation equipment, often site idle due to the lack of required proppant at the well-site. “Screening-Out” or running out of proppant is very common at well locations due to the lack of control over what is happening up-stream in the proppant logistics chain. This results in lower profit margins to the service company. Many small to medium-sized hydraulic fracturing companies have little or no logistics infrastructure. Some have entered the marketplace without much thought to the logistics problems associated with taking delivery of the necessary supplies to complete a well. In doing so, many of these companies have been forced to source material and employ very expensive logistics options in order to survive. This has resulted in above-market pricing in order to complete wells. There is also a risk of losing out on otherwise viable hydraulic fracturing contracts. As such, there is a need to lower costs across the board in order to properly compete.
Exploration and production companies, along with the entire U.S. population, pay the ultimate bill for all of the inefficiencies and waste that plagues the proppant supply chain. Service companies are forced to price hydraulic fracturing services by taking into account the historical costs of supply chain problems. Exploration and production companies need to pass on the overall increased cost of production. As such, there is a need to provide a cost-effective solution to improve the profitability of stake holders in the proppant logistics chain, while lowering the overall cost to the consumer.
U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/427,140, filed on Mar. 22, 2012 by the present inventor, describes a system for the delivery of proppant between a loading station and the well site. This application describes the steps of placing the storage container in a location adjacent to a train site such that the proppant, as delivered by the train, can be discharged into the container. The container can then be transported for storage in stacks at the loading area or can be delivered to a tilting mechanism at the loading station. The tilting station will tilt the container so as to allow the proppant to flow outwardly therefrom. This proppant will flow, by a conveyor, to a pneumatic truck. The truck can then transport the proppant over the highways to the well site. At the well site, the proppant from the pneumatic truck can then be discharged into a twenty foot container at the well site. These twenty foot containers can be stored at the well site in a stacked configuration. Ultimately, each of the containers can be transported to another tilting mechanism at the well site so that the proppant within each of the storage containers can be discharged onto a conveyor and ultimately for use during the fracturing operation.
In this U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/427,140, the twenty-foot ISO container that is utilized is one of the most inexpensive and readily-available pieces of transportation equipment in the world. It was determined that the use of the twenty-foot container allows for the transportation of proppant through various minor modifications to the internal walls and reinforcements of the twenty-foot ISO container. The available capacity is more than acceptable. It was determined that this modified twenty-foot container could hold in excess of forty-five tons of proppant. The cost of an unmodified twenty-foot ISO container is less than four thousand dollars. This makes it very affordable compared to the cost of building vertical silos or flat storage buildings.
The twenty-foot ISO container was modified by cutting a hole in the top of the container and constructing a water-tight, hinged hatch through which the proppant could be poured by any number of readily-available conveying units. There was also a lower hatch in the twenty-foot ISO container. This lower hatch could be opened to drain the proppant out of the twenty-foot ISO container. Alternatively, a square flow-gate was fabricated and welded to the vertical rear lower side of the twenty-foot container. This gate hatch allowed the container to be tilted in the manner of a dump truck bed. As a result, sand could flow out of the flow gate while moderating the flow of the sand.
This patent application provided the ability to trans-load sand via containers from a standard rail hopper car to the twenty-foot ISO container. It was determined that the container could be loaded in less than twenty minutes with at least forty-five tons of proppant. By pre-positioning the container along the rail track, movable conveyors could work the train from one end to the other and unload the train in a very efficient and timely manner. This part of the process eliminated the coordination efforts of calling in pneumatic trucks that could be systematically loaded by conveying units. This reduced the time necessary to unload a train's hopper cars by many hours. It also eliminated truck traffic and demurrage charges at the rail-spur and trans-load facility.
Once the proppant is loaded into the container, another piece of specialized equipment would be used to lift the full container and to stack the container upon other containers. The stackable arrangement of containers allows the ability to operate and store proppant within a very small footprint. The specialized equipment that was required to lift the full containers was so heavy and large that it would have to be disassembled into several pieces before moving from one location to another. This created some limitations on the flexibility that such equipment lent to the containerized process.
By “containerizing” proppant, it was found that an inventory management system could be added in order to provide real-time, accurate information pertaining to the volume/inventory of proppant that the customers own in a particular region. Currently, many proppant buyers are subject to inaccurate volume reporting from trans-loading facilities. As such, they may not be certain that the proppant being delivered to the well-site is, in fact, of the quality and grade that they have purchased. By applying an inventory management system, bar coding, and scanning the containers into and out of inventory, the customers would be assured that they have received their proppant and would be able streamline the procurement process when ordering more material.
In this prior process, since the twenty-foot ISO container needed to be emptied and trans-loaded into pneumatic trailers for delivery to the wellhead, a tilting unit was incorporated into the process. This tilting unit accepted the twenty-foot ISO containers. The tilting unit is able to lift one end of the container and create the required angle to wholly empty the container through the flow gate. Once tilted, the sand would spill onto the belt of the conveyor and rise vertically into a hopper. The hopper rested on a steel fabrication stand. This stand is high enough such that a truck that pulls a pneumatic trailer could drive under the stand and be gravity fed by the hopper so as to fill up the sand trailer. These “loading stations” could be replicated along a path so as to alleviate the bottleneck of trucks at a trans-load facility that has a limited number of conveyors available to load the trucks. Once again, trucking demurrage at this trans-load facility could be dramatically reduced through the process. The railcars can be off-loaded rapidly and released back to the railroads. This also reduced or eliminated demurrage fees charged by the railroads for rail hopper cars that stood waiting to be off-loaded.
This prior process created an inexpensive storage solution, improved the efficiencies of the trans-loading process, added inventory visibility and controls, and reduced both truck and rail demurrage charges. However, it did have several limitations. For example, the twenty-foot ISO container, while capable of handling ninety thousand pounds of proppant, could not be transported legally over a public road. In most states, the maximum allowable total weight of a vehicle and its payload is eighty thousand pounds of gross vehicle weight in order to be considered a legal load. By law, any load that can be broken down by two units or more, in order to achieve a legal weight limit, must be divided into multiple loads. Since proppant is divisible, the law does not allow for heavy or over-weight loads.
The angle of repose of a granular material is the steepest angle of descent or dip of the slope relative to the horizontal plane when material on the slope face is on the verge of sliding. When bulk granular materials are poured onto a horizontal surface, a conical pile will form. The internal angle between the surface of the pile and the horizontal surface is known as the angle of repose and is related to the density, surface area and shape of the particles, and the coefficient of friction of the material. The angle of repose is also gravity-dependent.
When analyzing the angle of repose of proppant poured into a twenty-foot ISO container, it was evident that much of the volume of such a container was void. Specifically, the upper ends of twenty-foot ISO container could not be utilized without somehow manipulating or tilting the container as it was filled by a conveyor. Moreover, when emptying the container, by way of the original bottom hatch, the proppant would pour directly out of the bottom and leave a significant amount of material sitting on the floor of the container.
U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/555,635, filed on Jul. 23, 2012 by the present inventor, is the parent of the present application. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/555,635 described a new generation of the container by taking the original twenty-foot ISO container and splitting it in half. As such, a ten foot ISO container was provided. By breaking the container into a ten foot configuration, it was determined that such a container could hold approximately 45,000-48,000 pounds of proppant. More importantly, the total gross vehicle weight of such a fully-loaded container could be legally transported over a public road. This was a major breakthrough. The container could be delivered to the wellhead in advance of a frac crew and eliminate sand deliveries during the fracturing process. Because all of the required proppant for any frac job could be delivered and stored on-site, such a ten-foot ISO container effectively eliminated the occurrence of trucking demurrage charges at the well-site. Also, the use of such a ten-foot container effectively eliminated the problems caused by the angle of repose of the proppant and allowed the volumetric capacity of such a ten-foot ISO container to be more fully utilized. It was found to be the optimal configuration, size, and cost for the process.
This prior application utilized an insert that is fabricated and welded within the interior of the ten-foot ISO container. The insert allowed the proppant, loaded through the top hatch, to fully flow out of a newly designed bottom flow-gate. The need to manipulate or tilt the container was eliminated. This ten-foot container could now be filled and emptied by using only gravity to do so.
In the past, various patents have issued relating to storage and transport facilities. For example, U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0179054, published on Jul. 31, 2008 to McGough et al., shows a bulk material storage and transportation system. In particular, the storage system is mounted on the trailer of a truck. The storage system includes walls that define an interior volume suitable for receiving the aggregate material therein. There are hoppers provided at the bottom of the container. These hoppers have inclined walls. The hoppers can extend so as to allow the material from the inside of the container to be properly conveyed to a location exterior of the container. Actuators are used so as to expand and collapse the container.
U.S. Pat. No. 7,240,681, issued on Jul. 10, 2007 to L. Saik, describes a trailer-mounted mobile apparatus for dewatering and recovering formation sand. The trailer is mounted to a truck-towable trailer so as to receive sand therein. The container has a pair of sloping end walls. The back end of the container is suitably openable so as to allow the sand to be removed therefrom. A pneumatic or hydraulic ram is provided on the forward part of the container so as to allow the container to be lifted angularly upwardly so as to allow sand to be discharged through the gate at the rear of the container.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,247,228, issued on Jan. 27, 1981 to Gray et al., describes a dump truck or trailer with a pneumatic conveyor. The container is mounted to a frame on wheels. A hydraulic ram tilts the container for dumping through a rear outlet. A pneumatic conveyor is carried by the frame with an intake at the rear of the container. A gate allows the solids to be dumped conventionally by gravity or to be blown to a storage facility by the pneumatic container. The container has a top hatch formed therein so as to allow the solids to be introduced into the interior of the container.
U.S. Pat. No. 2,865,521, issued on Dec. 23, 1958 to Fisher et al., shows a bulk material truck that has an interior volume suitable for the receipt of bulk material therein. A pneumatic conveyer is utilized so as to allow the removal of such material from the bottom of the container. A pair of sloping walls are provided on opposite sides of the container so as to allow the bulk material within the container to be passed toward the bottom of the container. A top hatch is provided on the top of the conveyer. The pneumatic conveyer is connected to the bottom of the container.
It is an object of the present invention to provide a proppant storage container that allows proppant to be easily transported and stored.
It is another object of the present invention to provide a proppant storage container that allows the proppant to be easily and efficiently discharged to the bottom of the container.
It is another object of the present invention to provide a proppant storage container which allows for the effective storage of proppant at the fracturing site.
It is another object of the present invention to provide a process for delivering proppants that eliminates the use of pneumatic trailers.
It is further object of the present invention to provide a proppant storage container and a process for delivering proppant in which of the containers can be moved by a simple forklift.
It is another object of the present invention to provide a process for delivering proppants which effectively eliminates demurrage associated with the loading station and at the well site.
It is a further object of the present invention to provide a process of the deliver proppant which avoids the degradation of the proppant as a result of repeated handling.
It is a further object of the present invention to provide a proppant discharge system which provides a premeasured amount of proppant to the drill site.
It is still another object of the present invention to provide a proppant container which satisfies highway regulation and which has less void space within the interior of the container.
These and other objects and advantages of the present invention will become apparent from a reading of the attached specification and appended claims.
The present invention is a container for the transport and storage of proppant. The container comprises a box having a bottom, a pair of side walls, a pair of end walls and a top. The box has an inlet formed at or adjacent to the top. The box has an outlet at the bottom. A gate is positioned at the outlet. The gate is slidably movable between a first position covering the outlet and a second position opening the outlet.
A first ramp extends from one of the pair of sidewalls to the outlet. A second ramp extends from the other of the pair of sidewalls to the outlet. A third ramp extends from one pair of end walls to the outlet. A fourth ramp extends from the other of the pair of end walls to the outlet. The box has a track formed on the bottom thereof. The gate is positioned in the track. The gate has a pin extending outwardly therefrom. The box has a frame formed on an exterior thereof. The frame extends across the pair of sidewalls and the pair of end walls. The ramps have exterior surfaces exposed through the frame. The box has a capacity of up to 48,000 pounds of the proppant. The box is a ten-foot ISO container.
The present invention is also a proppant discharge system that has a container with a pair of sidewalls, a pair of end walls, a bottom and a top. The container has an inlet formed at or adjacent to the top. The container has an outlet formed at the bottom thereof. A gate is slidably affixed at the outlet of the container so to be movable between a first position covering the outlet and a second position opening the outlet. A support structure has a top surface and at least one actuator. The container is removably positioned on the top surface of the support structure. The actuator is engageable with the gate so as to move the gate from the first position to the second position.
In particular, the gate has a pin extending therefrom. The actuator has a receptacle. The pin is receivable within the receptacle.
A conveyor underlies the top surface of the support structure so as to receive proppant as discharged from the container through the outlet of the container. A hopper is positioned on the support structure below the top surface thereof. The hopper is positioned directly below the gate of the container. The hopper has an opening at a bottom thereof. The bottom of the hopper is positioned above the conveyor. A metering gate is positioned adjacent to the opening at the bottom of the hopper metering gate. The metering gate is movable between a closed position and an open position. The opening at the bottom of the hopper has a plurality of slots formed therein. The metering gate also has a plurality of slots formed therethrough. The plurality of slots of the metering gate are at least partially aligned with the plurality of slots of the hopper when the metering gate is in the open position. The opening at the bottom of the hopper has an inverted V-shape configuration. The metering gate has an inverted V-shaped configuration matching with the opening at the bottom of the hopper. The metering gate is slidable relative to the opening at the bottom of the hopper. An actuator affixed to the metering gate so as to move the metering gate between the closed position and the open position.
A frame is affixed to the conveyor and extends therealong. A discharge chute is connected to the frame and is cooperative with the end of the conveyor so as to discharge the proppant from the conveyor to a desired location. A plurality of wheels can be rotatably mounted to the frame so as to allow the conveyor to be transported to the desired location.
The present invention is also a process for delivering proppant to a fracturing site. This process includes the steps of: (1) forming a container having an interior suitable for receiving the proppant therein and having an outlet at a bottom thereof; (2) filling the container with the proppant; (3) moving the filled container along a roadway to the fracturing site; (4) placing the filled container upon a conveyor structure; (5) discharging the proppant from the outlet of the container onto the conveyor; and (6) conveying the discharged proppant to a desired location at the fracturing site.
In this process of present invention, the step of forming includes forming the container so as to have a length of approximately ten feet. A gate is placed over the outlet of the container. The gate is movable between a first position closing the outlet and a second position opening the outlet. The conveyor structure has an actuator thereon. This actuator is connected to a receptacle. The gate has a pin extending outwardly therefrom. The pin is positioned into the receptacle of the actuator and the actuator is actuated so as to move the gate from the first position to the second position. The conveyor structure has a hopper is positioned below a top surface thereof. The hopper has a metering gate at a bottom thereof. The metering gate is positioned above the conveyor of the conveyor structure. The filled container is positioned directly above the hopper of the conveyor structure. The proppant is discharged from the outlet of the container into the hopper of the conveyor structure. The proppant is metered through the metering gate at a control flow rate so as to be discharged therefrom onto the conveyor.
The process of the present invention further includes the steps of placing the filled container upon a train, transporting the filled container on the train to a location, removing the filled container from the train, and placing the removed filled container onto a vehicle.
This foregoing section is intended to describe, with particularity, the preferred embodiments of the present invention. It is understood that modifications to these preferred embodiments can be made within the scope of the present invention. As such, this section should not be construed, in any way, as limiting of the true scope of the present invention. The present invention should only be limited by the following claims and their legal equivalents.
Referring to
In
As can be seen in
As can be seen in
In
A receptacle 76 is positioned at or adjacent to the top surface 64. The actuator 78 is affixed to the frame 62 and extends to the receptacle 76. As can be seen, the receptacle 76 has a slot formed in the top end thereof. The slot of the receptacle 76 is suitable for receiving one of the pins 48 and 58 of the gate 44 of the container 10. Once the receptacle 76 receives the pin 48 therein, the actuator 78 can be actuated so as to move the receptacle (and its received pin) from the first position 80 to a second position 82. When the receptacle 82 (along with the pin received therein) is moved to the second position 82, the gate 44 will be opened so that the proppant can be discharged through the outlet 36 of the container 10. Since pins 48 and 58 are symmetrically placed, and since the container 10 is rather symmetrical, the support structure 60 is particularly adapted to the variety of orientations with the container 10 can be placed upon the top surface
In
As can be seen in
The container 10 of the present invention is manufactured as a single unit. The gate 44 of the container 10 is specifically engineered to align with the actuator 70 located on the conveying system. The actuator is hydraulically controlled and accepts the pin 48 which is attached to the gate 44. When the actuator 70 is activated, the gate 44 moves horizontally so as to allow for the discharge of proppant therefrom.
The container of the present invention can be specifically applied for transport via rail. In particular, the railcar can be designed so as to accommodate up to four containers 10. As such, the railcar can carry approximately 180,000 pounds of proppant when the four containers are placed on the railcar. The railcar can be similar to current inter-modal railcars that carry twenty foot, forty foot and fifty-three foot inter-modal containers. The railcar would include typical inter-modal load-locks which are evenly spaced down to chassis of the railcar. The container should be constructed of materials wide enough to keep the overall loaded weight of the container under currently regulated railroad weight guidelines. Additionally, it must be strong enough to bear the load of the loaded container. This development allows sand mines to load proppant directly into a container 10 in order to speed up the loading process. It also eliminates the need to build a silo storage at the mine site. Once the container arrives at its designated location or region, trans-load processes to pneumatic trailers, silos or flat storage, are thus eliminated.
The present invention is an improved delivery system that can be used at the well-site. The support structure 60 includes a fabricated steel frame upon which multiple containers can be positioned. The containers lock into receptacles that secure the containers to the frame. The container will then sit above a conveying system that delivers the proppant from the container as the gate is opened to a master-conveying belt. The cradle is outfitted with a hydraulic system which can control the opening and closing of the gates. The containers of the present invention can be combined as an attachment or cartridge compatible with existing devices known as SAND KINGS™, SAND CHIEFS™ and SAND DRAGONS™. By replacing existing hoppers on these devices with the removable containers of the present invention, even greater efficiencies can be attained in the proppant delivery process.
The conveying system of the present invention is an alternative method of delivering proppant from the container to the blender belt for the mixing unit once delivered to the well-site. The conveying system of the present invention provides all of the functionality commonly seen in the SAND MASTER™, SAND KING™, SAND DRAGON™, SAND MOVE™, etc. As such, the present invention allows the flow of sand to be metered onto the conveyor belt through a hydraulic system of flow gates. The container is first lifted into position onto the support structure. The bottom flow gate is received by the receptacle of the hydraulic actuator so as to create a lock between the pin of the gate and the hydraulic system. The hydraulic system then opens the flow gate and the proppant so as to gravity-feed into a hopper located on the support structure. Another set of flow gates associated with the hopper system are then opened by way of another hydraulic system. This allows the proppant to be metered and to flow onto a conveyor belt. The conveyor belt can then deliver the proppant to the blender or the T-Belt. The proppant can then be mixed with other materials in the blender.
Currently, expensive pneumatic bulk trucks are utilized in the delivery of proppant to a well-site. Once on-site, the trucker employs a power take-off unit to “blow” the sand into the sand storage devices. This delivery often takes over one (1) hour to complete. By delivering sand to the well in the ten-foot containers of the present invention, the use of expensive pieces of specialized equipment are eliminated. The container can ride on a standard flatbed, step-deck, low-boy, or other more commonly-used trailer. As such, the process of the present invention is able to tap into a much larger universe of available trucking capacity. This can reduce the transportation costs to the well. While pneumatic trailer deliveries are priced in “round trip” miles, the delivery of the container of the present invention by a more common piece of equipment (capable of getting a “back-haul”) significantly reduces the overall transportation cost. As an example, there is a great need for parts, tools and other wellhead equipment to be taken off the well-site for repair or return to a manufacturer or rental company. The flatbed trailer, now empty, has the ability to accept that load while it is on-site rather than calling in another trucking company to provide that service. The reduced need for “hot-shot” service is another significant value to the service company and ultimately the exploration and production company.
In terms of returning empty containers to the sand distribution facilities, a total of four (4) empty containers can be returned by a single flatbed trailer. This provides a 4:1 level of efficiency in removing the containers from the well-site. Additionally, a forty foot container chassis will be used in the movement of both empty and full containers. The support structure, just like the containers, can be delivered to the well-site by a typical flatbed truck. The support structure could be towed via truck to the site in manner similar to any other trailer.
Another important advantage to the present invention is the small footprint that the ten-foot ISO containers of the present invention occupy relative to the capacity of sand that they can store. When the containers are stacked three high, the containers can store approximately 135,000 pounds in a footprint of eighty square feet. The available space at the wellhead, and in potential proppant trans-loading facilities, can be extremely limited. As such, the process of the present invention minimizes the footprint that is required for a given amount of proppant at such a location.
Since environmental and safety concerns surrounding well-site operations is becoming an increasing concern, the present invention minimizes the amount of particulate matter that is released into the air. Proppant is currently delivered to the frac site via pneumatic trailers. Pneumatic pressure is used to pressurize the trailer and then “blow” the material into a sand storage unit. This process creates an immense amount of particulate matter than can then be inhaled by personnel at the frac-site. Additionally, while blowing the sand into the sand storage facility, the sand storage facility must vent the pressurized air to the atmosphere. This creates an even greater exposure to particulate matter. The constant need to take delivery of proppant on-site creates a constant environment of dust and small particles in the air. Since the present invention eliminates pneumatic deliveries, the process of the present invention significantly reduces the amount of particulate matter on the frac-site. The gravity-feed delivery method from the container to the blender greatly improves the safety of well-site personnel.
The present invention also serves to reduce trucking emissions by reducing the amount of trucks that are being used or waiting. The safety at the wellhead is improved by reducing such truck traffic.
Referring to
The present application is a continuation which claims priority to and the benefit of U.S. application Ser. No. 13/628,702, filed on Sep. 27, 2012, and titled “Proppant Discharge System and a Container For Use in Such a Proppant Discharge System” which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. application Ser. No. 13/555,635, filed on Jul. 23, 2012, and titled “Proppant Discharge System Having a Container and the Process for Providing Proppant to a Well Site,” each of which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
The foregoing disclosure and description of the invention is illustrative and explanatory thereof. Various changes in the details of the illustrated construction, or in the steps of the described method, can be made within the scope of the present invention without departing from the true spirit of the invention. The present invention should only be limited by the following claims and their legal equivalents.
The present application is a continuation which claims priority to and the benefit of U.S. application Ser. No. 13/628,702, filed on Sep. 27, 2012, and titled “Proppant Discharge System and a Container For Use in Such a Proppant Discharge System” which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. application Ser. No. 13/555,635, filed on Jul. 23, 2012, and titled “Proppant Discharge System Having a Container and the Process for Providing Proppant to a Well Site,” each of which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
137871 | Worsley | Apr 1873 | A |
150894 | Safely | May 1874 | A |
384443 | Hoover | Jun 1888 | A |
448238 | Johnson | Mar 1891 | A |
711632 | Johnson | Oct 1902 | A |
917649 | Otto | Apr 1909 | A |
1143641 | McGregor | Jun 1915 | A |
1331883 | Stuart | Feb 1920 | A |
1344768 | Messiter | Jun 1920 | A |
1434488 | Forsythe et al. | Nov 1922 | A |
1520560 | Burno | Dec 1923 | A |
1506936 | Lea | Sep 1924 | A |
1526527 | Butler | Feb 1925 | A |
1573664 | Wetherill | Feb 1926 | A |
1807447 | Smith | May 1931 | A |
1850000 | Fernand | Mar 1932 | A |
1932320 | Steward | Oct 1933 | A |
1973312 | Hardinge | Sep 1934 | A |
2233005 | Garlinghouse | Feb 1941 | A |
2255448 | Morris | Sep 1941 | A |
2293160 | Miller et al. | Aug 1942 | A |
2368672 | McNamara | Feb 1945 | A |
2381103 | Frank | Aug 1945 | A |
2423879 | De Frees | Jul 1947 | A |
2564020 | Mengel | Aug 1951 | A |
2603342 | Martinson | Jul 1952 | A |
2616758 | Meyers | Nov 1952 | A |
2622771 | Tulou | Dec 1952 | A |
2652174 | Shea et al. | Sep 1953 | A |
2678145 | Ejuzwiak et al. | May 1954 | A |
2693282 | Sensibar | Nov 1954 | A |
2700574 | Tourneau | Jan 1955 | A |
2792262 | Hathorn | Apr 1955 | A |
2774515 | Johansson et al. | Dec 1956 | A |
2791973 | Dorey | May 1957 | A |
2801125 | Page et al. | Jul 1957 | A |
2808164 | Glendinning | Oct 1957 | A |
2812970 | Martinson | Nov 1957 | A |
2837369 | Stopps | Jun 1958 | A |
2865521 | Fisher et al. | Dec 1958 | A |
2873036 | Noble | Feb 1959 | A |
2894666 | Campbell, Jr. | Jul 1959 | A |
2988235 | Ronyak | Jun 1961 | A |
2994460 | Matthews | Aug 1961 | A |
3049248 | Heltzel et al. | Aug 1962 | A |
3064832 | Heltzel | Nov 1962 | A |
3083879 | Coleman | Apr 1963 | A |
3090527 | Rensch | May 1963 | A |
3109389 | Karlsson | Nov 1963 | A |
3122258 | Raymond | Feb 1964 | A |
3135432 | McKinney | Jun 1964 | A |
3163127 | Gutridge et al. | Dec 1964 | A |
3187684 | Ortner | Jun 1965 | A |
3198494 | Curran et al. | Aug 1965 | A |
3199585 | Cronberger | Aug 1965 | A |
3248026 | Kemp | Apr 1966 | A |
3255927 | Ruppert et al. | Jun 1966 | A |
3265443 | Simas | Aug 1966 | A |
3270921 | Nadolske et al. | Sep 1966 | A |
3281006 | Tohchung | Oct 1966 | A |
3294306 | Areddy | Dec 1966 | A |
3318473 | Jones et al. | May 1967 | A |
3353599 | Swift | Nov 1967 | A |
3354918 | Coleman | Nov 1967 | A |
3378152 | Warner | Apr 1968 | A |
3387570 | Pulcrano et al. | Jun 1968 | A |
3396675 | Stevens | Aug 1968 | A |
3397654 | Snyder | Aug 1968 | A |
3406995 | McCarthy | Oct 1968 | A |
3407971 | Oehler | Oct 1968 | A |
3425599 | Sammarco et al. | Feb 1969 | A |
3455474 | Truncali | Jul 1969 | A |
3524567 | Coleman | Aug 1970 | A |
3528570 | Pase | Sep 1970 | A |
3561633 | Morrison et al. | Feb 1971 | A |
3587834 | Dugge | Jun 1971 | A |
3596609 | Ortner et al. | Aug 1971 | A |
3601244 | Ort et al. | Aug 1971 | A |
3602400 | Cooke | Aug 1971 | A |
3650567 | Danielson | Mar 1972 | A |
3653521 | Bridge | Apr 1972 | A |
3661293 | Gerhard et al. | May 1972 | A |
3692363 | Tenebaum et al. | Sep 1972 | A |
3704797 | Suykens | Dec 1972 | A |
3721199 | Hassenauer | Mar 1973 | A |
3729121 | Cannon | Apr 1973 | A |
3734215 | Smith | May 1973 | A |
3738511 | Lemon et al. | Jun 1973 | A |
3777909 | Rheinfrank | Dec 1973 | A |
3785534 | Smith | Jan 1974 | A |
3800712 | Krug, Jr. | Apr 1974 | A |
3802584 | Sackett | Apr 1974 | A |
3817261 | Rogge | Jun 1974 | A |
3820762 | Bostrom et al. | Jun 1974 | A |
3827578 | Hough | Aug 1974 | A |
3840141 | Allom et al. | Oct 1974 | A |
3854612 | Snape | Dec 1974 | A |
3861716 | Baxter et al. | Jan 1975 | A |
3883005 | Stevens | May 1975 | A |
3933100 | Dugge | Jan 1976 | A |
3970123 | Poulton et al. | Jul 1976 | A |
3986708 | Heltzel et al. | Oct 1976 | A |
3997089 | Clarke et al. | Dec 1976 | A |
4003301 | Norton | Jan 1977 | A |
4004700 | Empey | Jan 1977 | A |
4057153 | Weaver | Nov 1977 | A |
4058239 | Van Mill | Nov 1977 | A |
4063656 | Lambert | Dec 1977 | A |
4073410 | Melcher | Feb 1978 | A |
4138163 | Calvert et al. | Feb 1979 | A |
4178117 | Brugler | Dec 1979 | A |
4204773 | Bates | May 1980 | A |
4210273 | Hegele | Jul 1980 | A |
4210963 | Ricciardi et al. | Jul 1980 | A |
RE30358 | Sensibar | Aug 1980 | E |
4222498 | Brock | Sep 1980 | A |
4227732 | Kish | Oct 1980 | A |
4232884 | DeWitt | Nov 1980 | A |
4239424 | Pavolka | Dec 1980 | A |
4247228 | Gray et al. | Jan 1981 | A |
4258953 | Johnson | Mar 1981 | A |
4265266 | Kierbow et al. | May 1981 | A |
4278190 | Oory et al. | Jul 1981 | A |
4282988 | Hulbert, Jr. | Aug 1981 | A |
4287921 | Sanford | Sep 1981 | A |
4287997 | Rolfe et al. | Sep 1981 | A |
4289353 | Merritt | Sep 1981 | A |
4299597 | Oetiker et al. | Nov 1981 | A |
4306895 | Thompson et al. | Dec 1981 | A |
4329106 | Adler | May 1982 | A |
4350241 | Wenzel | Sep 1982 | A |
4359176 | Johnson | Nov 1982 | A |
4363396 | Wolf et al. | Dec 1982 | A |
4397406 | Croley | Aug 1983 | A |
4398653 | Daloisio | Aug 1983 | A |
4402392 | Fabian et al. | Sep 1983 | A |
4407202 | McCormick | Oct 1983 | A |
4408886 | Sampson et al. | Oct 1983 | A |
4410106 | Kierbow et al. | Oct 1983 | A |
4427133 | Kierbow et al. | Jan 1984 | A |
4428504 | Bassett et al. | Jan 1984 | A |
4449861 | Saito et al. | May 1984 | A |
4453645 | Usui et al. | Jun 1984 | A |
4474204 | West | Oct 1984 | A |
4475672 | Whitehead | Oct 1984 | A |
4478155 | Cena et al. | Oct 1984 | A |
4483462 | Heintz | Nov 1984 | A |
4525071 | Horowitz | Jun 1985 | A |
4532098 | Campbell | Jul 1985 | A |
4569394 | Sweatman et al. | Feb 1986 | A |
4571143 | Hellerich | Feb 1986 | A |
4608931 | Ruhmann et al. | Sep 1986 | A |
4619531 | Dunstan | Oct 1986 | A |
4626155 | Hlinsky et al. | Dec 1986 | A |
4626166 | Jolly | Dec 1986 | A |
4628825 | Taylor et al. | Dec 1986 | A |
4660733 | Snyder et al. | Apr 1987 | A |
4701095 | Berryman et al. | Oct 1987 | A |
4715754 | Scully | Dec 1987 | A |
4738774 | Patrick | Apr 1988 | A |
4741273 | Sherwood | May 1988 | A |
4801389 | Brannon et al. | Jan 1989 | A |
4819830 | Schultz | Apr 1989 | A |
4848605 | Wise | Jul 1989 | A |
4882784 | Tump | Nov 1989 | A |
4889219 | Key | Dec 1989 | A |
4901649 | Fehrenbach et al. | Feb 1990 | A |
4909378 | Webb | Mar 1990 | A |
4909556 | Koskinen | Mar 1990 | A |
4917019 | Hesch et al. | Apr 1990 | A |
4919583 | Speakman, Jr. | Apr 1990 | A |
4923358 | Van Mill | May 1990 | A |
4946068 | Erickson et al. | Aug 1990 | A |
4947760 | Dawson et al. | Aug 1990 | A |
4954975 | Kalata | Sep 1990 | A |
4956821 | Fenelon | Sep 1990 | A |
4975205 | Sloan | Dec 1990 | A |
4995522 | Barr | Feb 1991 | A |
5004400 | Handke | Apr 1991 | A |
5042538 | Wiese | Aug 1991 | A |
5069352 | Harbolt et al. | Dec 1991 | A |
5080259 | Hadley | Jan 1992 | A |
5082304 | Preller | Jan 1992 | A |
5102281 | Handke | Apr 1992 | A |
5102286 | Fenton | Apr 1992 | A |
5105858 | Levinson | Apr 1992 | A |
5131524 | Uehara | Jul 1992 | A |
5190182 | Copas et al. | Mar 1993 | A |
5195861 | Handke | Mar 1993 | A |
5199826 | Lawrence | Apr 1993 | A |
5201546 | Lindsay | Apr 1993 | A |
5224635 | Wise | Jul 1993 | A |
5253746 | Friesen et al. | Oct 1993 | A |
5253776 | Decroix et al. | Oct 1993 | A |
5265763 | Heinrici et al. | Nov 1993 | A |
5286158 | Zimmerman | Feb 1994 | A |
5290139 | Hedrick | Mar 1994 | A |
5320046 | Hesch | Jun 1994 | A |
5324097 | DeCap | Jun 1994 | A |
5339996 | Dubbert | Aug 1994 | A |
5345982 | Nadeau et al. | Sep 1994 | A |
5358137 | Shuert et al. | Oct 1994 | A |
5373792 | Pileggi et al. | Dec 1994 | A |
5402915 | Hogan | Apr 1995 | A |
5413154 | Hurst, Jr. et al. | May 1995 | A |
5429259 | Robin | Jul 1995 | A |
5441321 | Karpisek | Aug 1995 | A |
5445289 | Owen | Aug 1995 | A |
5465829 | Kruse | Nov 1995 | A |
5470175 | Jensen et al. | Nov 1995 | A |
5493852 | Stewart | Feb 1996 | A |
5538286 | Hoff | Jul 1996 | A |
5549278 | Sidler | Aug 1996 | A |
5564599 | Barber et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
5570743 | Padgett et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
5590976 | Kilheffer et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
5601181 | Lindhorst | Feb 1997 | A |
5602761 | Spoerre et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
5613446 | DiLuigi et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
5617974 | Sawyer | Apr 1997 | A |
5647514 | Toth et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
RE35580 | Heider et al. | Aug 1997 | E |
5667298 | Musil | Sep 1997 | A |
5687881 | Rouse et al. | Nov 1997 | A |
5690466 | Gaddis et al. | Nov 1997 | A |
5697535 | Coleman | Dec 1997 | A |
5706614 | Wiley et al. | Jan 1998 | A |
5718555 | Swalheim | Feb 1998 | A |
5722552 | Olson | Mar 1998 | A |
5761854 | Johnson et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5762222 | Liu | Jun 1998 | A |
5772390 | Walker | Jun 1998 | A |
5782524 | Heider et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5785421 | Milek | Jul 1998 | A |
5803296 | Olson | Sep 1998 | A |
5806863 | Heger et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5836480 | Epp et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5845799 | Deaton | Dec 1998 | A |
5876172 | Di Rosa | Mar 1999 | A |
5906471 | Schwoerer | May 1999 | A |
5911337 | Bedeker | Jun 1999 | A |
5927558 | Bruce | Jul 1999 | A |
5971219 | Karpisek | Oct 1999 | A |
5993202 | Yamazaki et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6002063 | Bilak et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6006918 | Hart | Dec 1999 | A |
6069118 | Hinkel et al. | May 2000 | A |
6077068 | Okumura | Jun 2000 | A |
6092974 | Roth | Jul 2000 | A |
6109486 | Lee | Aug 2000 | A |
6120233 | Adam | Sep 2000 | A |
6155175 | Rude et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6186654 | Gunteret et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6190107 | Lanigan et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6192985 | Hinkel et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6196590 | Kim | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6205938 | Foley et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6247594 | Garton | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6263803 | Dohr et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6269849 | Fields | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6273154 | Laug | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6283212 | Hinkel et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6286986 | Grimland | Sep 2001 | B2 |
6296109 | Nohl | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6306800 | Samuel et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6328156 | Ostman | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6328183 | Coleman | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6364584 | Taylor | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6374915 | Andrews | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6382446 | Hinkle et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6401983 | McDonald et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6412422 | Dohr et al. | Jul 2002 | B2 |
6415909 | Mitchell et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6416271 | Pigott et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6425725 | Ehlers | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6457291 | Wick | Oct 2002 | B2 |
6505760 | Werner | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6508387 | Simon et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6508615 | Taylor | Jan 2003 | B2 |
6523482 | Wingate | Feb 2003 | B2 |
6537002 | Gloystein | Mar 2003 | B2 |
6575614 | Tosco et al. | Jun 2003 | B2 |
6660693 | Miller et al. | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6663373 | Yoshida | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6666573 | Grassi | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6675073 | Kieman et al. | Jan 2004 | B2 |
6705449 | Wagstaffe | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6720290 | England et al. | Apr 2004 | B2 |
6772912 | Schall et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6774318 | Beal et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6776235 | England | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6783032 | Fons | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6811048 | Lau | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6828280 | England et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
6835041 | Albert | Dec 2004 | B1 |
6882960 | Miller | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6902061 | Elstone | Jun 2005 | B1 |
6915854 | England et al. | Jul 2005 | B2 |
6953119 | Wening | Oct 2005 | B1 |
6955127 | Taylor | Oct 2005 | B2 |
6964551 | Friesen | Nov 2005 | B1 |
6968946 | Shuert | Nov 2005 | B2 |
6974021 | Boevers | Dec 2005 | B1 |
7008163 | Russell | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7051661 | Herzog et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7084095 | Lee et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7104425 | Le Roy | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7140516 | Bothor | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7146914 | Morton et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7201290 | Mehus et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7214028 | Boasso | May 2007 | B2 |
7240681 | Saik | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7252309 | Eng Soon et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7284579 | Elgan et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7284670 | Schmid | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7316333 | Wegner | Jan 2008 | B2 |
7367271 | Early | May 2008 | B2 |
7377219 | Brandt | May 2008 | B2 |
7410623 | Mehus et al. | Aug 2008 | B2 |
7475796 | Garton | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7500817 | Furrer et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7513280 | Brashears et al. | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7591386 | Hooper | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7640075 | Wietgrefe | Dec 2009 | B2 |
7695538 | Cheng | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7753637 | Benedict et al. | Jul 2010 | B2 |
7798558 | Messier | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7802958 | Garcia et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7803321 | Lark et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7837427 | Beckel | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7841394 | McNeel et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7845516 | Pessin et al. | Dec 2010 | B2 |
7858888 | Lucas et al. | Dec 2010 | B2 |
7891304 | Herzog et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
7891523 | Mehus et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
7896198 | Mehus et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
7921783 | Forbes et al. | Apr 2011 | B2 |
7967161 | Townsend | Jun 2011 | B2 |
7980803 | Brandstätter et al. | Jul 2011 | B2 |
7997623 | Williams | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8083083 | Mohns | Dec 2011 | B1 |
8201520 | Meritt | Jun 2012 | B2 |
8313278 | Simmons et al. | Nov 2012 | B2 |
8366349 | Beachner | Feb 2013 | B2 |
8375690 | LaFargue et al. | Feb 2013 | B2 |
8379927 | Taylor | Feb 2013 | B2 |
8387824 | Wietgrefe | Mar 2013 | B2 |
8393502 | Renyer et al. | Mar 2013 | B2 |
8424666 | Berning et al. | Apr 2013 | B2 |
D688351 | Oren | Aug 2013 | S |
8505780 | Oren | Aug 2013 | B2 |
8544419 | Spalding et al. | Oct 2013 | B1 |
8545148 | Wanek-Pusset et al. | Oct 2013 | B2 |
8562022 | Nadeau et al. | Oct 2013 | B2 |
8573387 | Trimble | Nov 2013 | B2 |
8573917 | Renyer | Nov 2013 | B2 |
8585341 | Oren | Nov 2013 | B1 |
D694670 | Oren | Dec 2013 | S |
8616370 | Allegretti | Dec 2013 | B2 |
8622251 | Oren | Jan 2014 | B2 |
8636832 | Stutzman et al. | Jan 2014 | B2 |
8646641 | Moir | Feb 2014 | B2 |
8668430 | Oren | Mar 2014 | B2 |
D703582 | Oren | Apr 2014 | S |
8820559 | Beitler et al. | Sep 2014 | B2 |
8827118 | Oren | Sep 2014 | B2 |
8887914 | Allegretti | Nov 2014 | B2 |
8905266 | De Brabanter | Dec 2014 | B2 |
8915691 | Mintz | Dec 2014 | B2 |
9051801 | Mintz | Jun 2015 | B1 |
9052034 | Wegner et al. | Jun 2015 | B1 |
9267266 | Cutler et al. | Feb 2016 | B2 |
20010022308 | Epp et al. | Sep 2001 | A1 |
20010045338 | Ransil et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020134550 | Leeson et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020139643 | Peltier et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20030006248 | Gill et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030111470 | Fouillet et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030145418 | Ikeda et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030156929 | Russell | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20040065699 | Schoer et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040074922 | Bother et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040084874 | McDougall et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040206646 | Goh | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040245284 | Mehus et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050158158 | Porta | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050201851 | Jonkka | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20060012183 | Marchiori et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060027582 | Beach | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060053582 | Engel et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060091072 | Schmid et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060151058 | Salaoras et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060180062 | Furrer et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060180232 | Glewwe et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060239806 | Yelton | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060267377 | Lusk et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060277783 | Garton | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060289166 | Stromquist et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070096537 | Hicks | May 2007 | A1 |
20070125543 | McNeel et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20080008562 | Beckel et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080029546 | Schuld | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080029553 | Culleton | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080179054 | McGough et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080179324 | McGough et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080213073 | Benedict et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080226434 | Smith et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080264641 | Slabaugh et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080277423 | Garton | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20090038242 | Cope | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090078410 | Krenek et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090278326 | Rowland et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20100021258 | Kim | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100037572 | Cheng | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100038143 | Burnett et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100040446 | Renyer | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100065466 | Perkins | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100108711 | Wietgrefe | May 2010 | A1 |
20100129193 | Sherrer | May 2010 | A1 |
20100278621 | Redekop | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100288603 | Schafer | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20110011893 | Cerny | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110017693 | Thomas | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110101040 | Weissbrod | May 2011 | A1 |
20110109073 | Williams | May 2011 | A1 |
20110127178 | Claussen | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110160104 | Wu et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110162838 | Mackenzie et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110168593 | Neufeld et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110222983 | Dugic et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110297702 | Hildebrandt et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120103848 | Allegretti et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120219391 | Teichrob et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120255539 | Kolecki | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20130004272 | Mintz | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130022441 | Uhryn et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130206415 | Sheesley | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130209204 | Sheesley | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130233545 | Mahoney | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130284729 | Cook et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130309052 | Luharuka | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20130323005 | Rexius et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20140020765 | Oren | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140020892 | Oren | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140023465 | Oren et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140034662 | Chalmers et al. | Feb 2014 | A1 |
20140044507 | Naizer et al. | Feb 2014 | A1 |
20140083554 | Harris | Mar 2014 | A1 |
20140093319 | Harris et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140097182 | Sheesley | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140166647 | Sheesley et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
20140203046 | Allegretti | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20140234059 | Thomeer | Aug 2014 | A1 |
20140305769 | Eiden et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
20140321950 | Krenek et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
20150004895 | Hammers et al. | Jan 2015 | A1 |
20150069052 | Allegretti et al. | Mar 2015 | A1 |
20150086307 | Stefan | Mar 2015 | A1 |
20150110565 | Harris | Apr 2015 | A1 |
20150159232 | Zucchi et al. | Jun 2015 | A1 |
20160280480 | Smith et al. | Sep 2016 | A1 |
20170129721 | Harris et al. | May 2017 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2023138 | Feb 1992 | CA |
2791088 | Mar 2013 | CA |
201390486 | Jan 2010 | CN |
201881469 | Jun 2011 | CN |
103350017 | Oct 2013 | CN |
3108121 | Sep 1982 | DE |
3342281 | Jun 1985 | DE |
4217329 | May 1993 | DE |
0019967 | Dec 1980 | EP |
322283 | Jun 1989 | EP |
0564969 | Oct 1993 | EP |
0997607 | May 2000 | EP |
1052194 | Nov 2000 | EP |
1167236 | Jan 2002 | EP |
1775190 | Apr 2007 | EP |
2062832 | May 2009 | EP |
2311757 | Apr 2011 | EP |
2640598 | Jun 1990 | FR |
1296736 | Nov 1972 | GB |
2374864 | Oct 2002 | GB |
S4871029 | Sep 1973 | JP |
S4876041 | Sep 1973 | JP |
S58161888 | Oct 1983 | JP |
410087046 | Apr 1998 | JP |
10264882 | Oct 1998 | JP |
2012011046 | May 2013 | MX |
9008082 | Jul 1990 | WO |
9202437 | Feb 1992 | WO |
9301997 | Feb 1993 | WO |
9306031 | Apr 1993 | WO |
2006039757 | Apr 2006 | WO |
2007005054 | Jan 2007 | WO |
2007061310 | May 2007 | WO |
2010026235 | Mar 2010 | WO |
2012021447 | Feb 2012 | WO |
2012058059 | May 2012 | WO |
2011099358 | Jun 2013 | WO |
Entry |
---|
PCT International Search Report for PCT/US15/49074, dated Dec. 17, 2015. (11 pages). |
SandBox Logistics, LLC, screenshots from video dated Sep. 19, 2013. |
SandBox Logistics, LLC, screenshots from video dated Aug. 22, 2014. |
SandBox Logistics, LLC, screenshots from video dated Oct. 11, 2013. |
SandBox Logistics, LLC, screenshots from video dated Apr. 10, 2013. |
Grit Energy Solutions, LLC, Fidelity, Screenshots from video dated May 16, 2014. |
Grit Energy Solutions, LLC, Gate, Screenshots from video dated Dec. 6, 2013, https://www.youtube.com/user/gritstack. |
Grit Energy Solutions, LLC, Screen, Screenshots from video dated Dec. 6, 2013, https://www.youtube.com/user/gritstack. |
Grit Energy Solutions, LLC, The Grit Stack System—Live Frac, Screenshots from video dated Jun. 15, 2015, https://www.youtube.com/user/gritstack. |
Grit Energy Solutions, LLC, The Grit Stack System, Screenshots from video dated Feb. 7, 2014, https://www.youtube.com/user/gritstack. |
PCT International Search Report for PCT/US15/57601, dated May 6, 2016. (11 pages). |
Frac Sand Primer by Brian D. Olmen, Kelrick, LLC, from Hydraulic Fracturing by Michael Berry Smith and Carl Montgomery (CRC Press, Dec. 16, 2015), p. 384. |
Premier Silica LLC, Sands Application in the Energy Market, Irving, TX, Copyright 2016. |
Getty, John, Montana Tech; ASTM International, Overview of Proppants and Existing Standards and Practices, Jacksonville, FL, Jan. 29, 2013. |
Non-Final Office Action dated May 13, 2016 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/986,826. |
Final Office Action dated Sep. 15, 2016 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/922,836. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Feb. 4, 2016 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/922,836. |
Final Office Action dated Aug. 25, 2016 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/927,614. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Mar. 1, 2016 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/927,614. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Apr. 29, 2016 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/943,182. |
Final Office Action dated Sep. 15, 2016 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/882,973. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Feb. 11, 2016 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/882,973. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Aug. 11, 2016 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/625,675. |
Final Office Action dated Nov. 11, 2015 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/625,675. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Mar. 11, 2015 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/625,675. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Oct. 27, 2016 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 15/219,676. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Nov. 9, 2016 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/948,494. |
Final Office Action dated Nov. 4, 2016 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/738,485. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Dec. 28, 2016 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/628,702. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Jan. 13, 2017 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/923,920. |
Final Office Action dated Jan. 12, 2017 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/841,942. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Dec. 23, 2016 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/485,686. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Jan. 27, 2017 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/485,687. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Dec. 20, 2016 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/831,924. |
Final Office Action dated Jan. 19, 2017 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/660,855. |
Final Office Action dated Nov. 25, 2016 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 15/152,744. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Dec. 15, 2016 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/848,447. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Dec. 9, 2016 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/927,614. |
International Search Report for PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/050859 dated Dec. 9, 2016. |
Arrows Up, Inc., Jumbo BTS—Bulk Transport System, Aug. 1, 2014. |
Arrows Up, Inc., Reusable Packaging Association, Member Spotlight: John Allegretti, President & CEO, Arrows Up, Inc., Jun. 23, 2016. |
Seed Today, Arrows Up, Inc. Bulk Transport System (BTS), Country Journal Publishing Co., Decatur, IL, Mar. 2, 2011. |
SeedQuest, Arrows Up, Inc. launches innovative bulk transport system for see, Barrington, IL, Mar. 2, 2011. |
Monster Tanks, Inc., Sand Monster Website, http://monstertanksinc.com/sandmonster.html, 2012. |
Solaris Oilfield Infrastructure, Mobile Sand Silo System, 2016. |
Final Office Action dated Sep. 27, 2016 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/555,635. |
Non- Final Office Action dated Mar. 23, 2016 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/555,635. |
Final Office Action dated Jul. 30, 2015 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/555,635. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Oct. 22, 2014 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/555,635. |
Final Office Action dated Jun. 21, 2016 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/628,702. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Feb. 23, 2016 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/628,702. |
Final Office Action dated Sep. 22, 2015 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/628,702. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Jul. 28, 2015 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/628,702. |
Final Office Action dated Mar. 24, 2015 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/628,702. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Sep. 18, 2014 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/628,702. |
Final Office Action dated Jun. 27, 2016 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/831,924. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Feb. 16, 2016 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/831,924. |
Final Office Action dated Jun. 27, 2016 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/923,920. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Feb. 9, 2016 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/923,920. |
Final Office Action dated Sep. 1, 2016 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/848,447. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Apr. 8, 2016 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/848,447. |
Final Office Action dated Jul. 18, 2016 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/948,494. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Apr. 8, 2016 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/948,494. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Sep. 6, 2016 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 15/144,296. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Jul. 25, 2016 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/660,855. |
Final Office Action dated Apr. 28, 2016 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/660,855. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Oct. 6, 2015 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/660,855. |
Final Office Action dated Aug. 6, 2015 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/660,855. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Apr. 29, 2015 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/660,855. |
Final Office Action dated Dec. 17, 2014 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/660,855. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Sep. 4, 2014 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/660,855. |
Final Office Action dated Sep. 24, 2013 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/660,855. |
Non-Final Office Action dated May 14, 2013 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/660,855. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Jul. 5, 2016 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/996,362. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Jul. 6, 2016 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 15/144,450. |
Final Office Action dated Sep. 29, 2016 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/768,962. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Apr. 5, 2016 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/768,962. |
Final Office Action dated Oct. 9, 2015 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/768,962. |
Non-Final Office Action dated May 1, 2015 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/768,962. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Jul. 18, 2016 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 15/152,744. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Apr. 13, 2016 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/738,485. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Sep. 7, 2016 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/841,942. |
Final Office Action dated May 12, 2016 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/841,942. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Nov. 30, 2015 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/841,942. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Jul. 21, 2016 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 15/083,596. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Aug. 19, 2016 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 15/084,613. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Sep. 6, 2016 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 15/143,942. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Apr. 3, 2017 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/555,635. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Feb. 24, 2017 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/943,182. |
Final Office Action dated Mar. 7, 2017 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 15/144,296. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Apr. 6, 2017 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/768,962. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Mar. 6, 2017 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 15/152,744. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT/US2017/012271, dated May 22, 2017. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Apr. 24, 2017 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/738,485. |
Final Office Action dated May 4, 2017 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 15/143,942. |
Final Office Action dated May 30, 2017 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/625,675. |
Final Office Action dated Apr. 19, 2017 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 15/219,640. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Jun. 1, 2017 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 15/219,640. |
Final Office Action dated May 2, 2017 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 15/219,676. |
Non-Final Office Action dated May 10, 2017 for co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/882,973. |
International Search Report for related International Application No. PCT/US2012/066639, dated Feb. 25, 2013. |
International Search Report for related International Application No. PCT/US2013/035442, dated Jun. 23, 2013. |
International Search Report for related International Application No. PCT/US2013/032819, dated May 23, 2013. |
International Search Report for related International Application No. PCT/US2013/049028, dated Mar. 4, 2014. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability for PCT/US2012/066639, dated Feb. 26, 2013. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability for PCT/US2013/032819, dated Sep. 23, 2014. |
International Search Report for PCT/US2015/012990, dated May 6, 2015. (15 pages). |
FS-35 Desert Frac-Sanders. NOV (National Oilwell Varco). Mar. 19, 2012. (https://web.archive.org/web/20120319070423/http://www.nov.com/Well—Service—and—Completion/Frac—Sand—Handling—Equipment/Frac—Sanders/FS-35.aspx). |
File History for U.S. Appl. No. 61/538,616, Robert A. Harris, filed Sep. 23, 2011. (21 pages). |
International Search Report for PCT/US2015/024810, dated Jul. 8, 2015. (13 pages). |
European Search Report for Application No. 15167039.5, dated Sep. 8, 2015. (7 pages). |
SandBox Logistics, “Mine to Wellhead Logistics,” Houston, TX, May 2013. |
SandBox Logistics, screenshots from video made in Apr. 2013 and publicly shown in May 2013, Arnegard, North Dakota. |
International Search Report for PCT/US15/35635, dated Oct. 30, 2015. (12 pages). |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20160068337 A1 | Mar 2016 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 13628702 | Sep 2012 | US |
Child | 14943111 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 13555635 | Jul 2012 | US |
Child | 13628702 | US |