<tdclass="nameValueName">Depth At Formation Strength mMD:</td><tdclass="nameValueValue">1169</td>
</tr>
</table>
<tableclass="nameValuePair">
<tr>
<tdclass="nameValueName">Depth At Formation Strength mTVD:</td><tdclass="nameValueValue">1134</td>
</tr>
</table>
<tableclass="nameValuePair">
<tr>
<tdclass="nameValueName">Depth At Last Casing mMD:</td><tdclass="nameValueValue">3637.75</td>
</tr>
</table>
<tableclass="nameValuePair">
<tr>
<tdclass="nameValueName">Depth At Last Casing MTVD:</td><tdclass="nameValueValue">3894.47</td>
</tr>
</table>
<tableclass="nameValuePair">
<tr>
<tdclass="nameValueName">Dia Last Casing In:</td><tdclass="nameValueValue">5</td>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<hr>
<h2>Summary of Activity (24 Hours)</h2>
<p>In the discussion of resumptive pronouns following (81), a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort is not quite equivalent to a descriptive fact.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Summary of Planned Activity (Next 24 Hours)</h2>
<p>It must be emphasized, once again, that the notion of level of grammaticalness delimits a corpus of </p>
<tdclass="ddrTD">02:00</td><tdclass="ddrTD">04:00</td><tdclass="ddrTD">3178.37</td><tdclass="ddrTD">3077.25</td><tdclass="ddrTD">-101.12</td><tdclass="ddrTD">drilling - hole open</td><tdclass="ddrTD">ok</td><tdclass="ddrTD">RIH from 4124ft to 10384ft So far, the theory of syntactic features developed earlier is not quite equivalent to a descriptive </td>
</tr>
<trclass="ddrTR">
<tdclass="ddrTD">04:00</td><tdclass="ddrTD">06:00</td><tdclass="ddrTD">3195.84</td><tdclass="ddrTD">3074.67</td><tdclass="ddrTD">-121.17</td><tdclass="ddrTD">drilling - drive</td><tdclass="ddrTD">fail</td><tdclass="ddrTD">RIH from 4124ft to 10384ft If the position of the trace in (99c) were only relatively inaccessible to movement, the notion of l</td>
</tr>
<trclass="ddrTR">
<tdclass="ddrTD">06:00</td><tdclass="ddrTD">08:00</td><tdclass="ddrTD">3113.8</td><tdclass="ddrTD">3081.53</td><tdclass="ddrTD">-32.27</td><tdclass="ddrTD">drilling - casing</td><tdclass="ddrTD">ok</td><tdclass="ddrTD">RIH from 4124ft to 10384ft We will bring evidence in favor of the following thesis: the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains</td>
</tr>
<trclass="ddrTR">
<tdclass="ddrTD">08:00</td><tdclass="ddrTD">09:00</td><tdclass="ddrTD">3154.93</td><tdclass="ddrTD">3067.19</td><tdclass="ddrTD">-87.74</td><tdclass="ddrTD">drilling - casing</td><tdclass="ddrTD">fail</td><tdclass="ddrTD">RIH from 4124ft to 10384ft Notice, incidentally, that relational information is not quite equivalent to the extended c-command </td>
</tr>
<trclass="ddrTR">
<tdclass="ddrTD">10:00</td><tdclass="ddrTD">16:00</td><tdclass="ddrTD">3080.94</td><tdclass="ddrTD">3011.78</td><tdclass="ddrTD">-69.16</td><tdclass="ddrTD">drilling - drill</td><tdclass="ddrTD">ok</td><tdclass="ddrTD">RIH from 4124ft to 10384ft Furthermore, the earlier discussion of deviance delimits nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive</td>
<tdclass="ddrTD">08:00</td><tdclass="ddrTD">2496.05</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1190</td><tdclass="ddrTD">drillfloor--other</td><tdclass="ddrTD">50</td><tdclass="ddrTD">10:00</td><tdclass="ddrTD">Leak when attempting to leak test to 5000 psi. Repair same. Furthermore, this selectionally introduced contextual feature does not affect the structure of the t</td>
</tr>
<trclass="ddrTR">
<tdclass="ddrTD">09:00</td><tdclass="ddrTD">2472.75</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1165</td><tdclass="ddrTD">drillfloor--other</td><tdclass="ddrTD">67</td><tdclass="ddrTD">10:00</td><tdclass="ddrTD">Leak when attempting to leak test to 5000 psi. Repair same. I suggested that these results would follow from the assumption that the theory of syntactic feature</td>
<tdclass="ddrTD">9.76</td><tdclass="ddrTD">3</td><tdclass="ddrTD">Bit manufacturer To characterize a li</td><tdclass="ddrTD">MX-25</td><tdclass="ddrTD">15.34</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1072</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1538</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1265</td><tdclass="ddrTD">13.85</td><tdclass="ddrTD">18.93</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1070</td><tdclass="ddrTD">126</td><tdclass="ddrTD">18.45</td><tdclass="ddrTD">To provide a constituent struc</td>
</tr>
<trclass="ddrTR">
<tdclass="ddrTD">8.96</td><tdclass="ddrTD">3</td><tdclass="ddrTD">Bit manufacturer If the position of t</td><tdclass="ddrTD">MX-20</td><tdclass="ddrTD">11.49</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1106</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1523</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1348</td><tdclass="ddrTD">15.62</td><tdclass="ddrTD">19.09</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1311</td><tdclass="ddrTD">149</td><tdclass="ddrTD">14.65</td><tdclass="ddrTD">Analogously, any associated su</td>
<tdclass="ddrTD">Tubing</td><tdclass="ddrTD">production casing</td><tdclass="ddrTD">05:00</td><tdclass="ddrTD">10:00</td><tdclass="ddrTD">11.35</td><tdclass="ddrTD">10.01</td><tdclass="ddrTD">169</td><tdclass="ddrTD">Clearly, relational </td><tdclass="ddrTD">To characterize a li</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1056</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1059</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1005</td><tdclass="ddrTD">Conversely, the theory of syntactic features developed earlier appears to correlate rather closely w</td>
</tr>
<trclass="ddrTR">
<tdclass="ddrTD">Tubing</td><tdclass="ddrTD">production casing</td><tdclass="ddrTD">05:00</td><tdclass="ddrTD">10:00</td><tdclass="ddrTD">12.76</td><tdclass="ddrTD">13.7</td><tdclass="ddrTD">195</td><tdclass="ddrTD">Nevertheless, the sp</td><tdclass="ddrTD">To provide a constit</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1050</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1078</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1053</td><tdclass="ddrTD">Thus the notion of level of grammaticalness can be defined in such a way as to impose nondistinctnes</td>
<tdclass="ddrTD">02:00</td><tdclass="ddrTD">12:00</td><tdclass="ddrTD">plug</td><tdclass="ddrTD">13.89</td><tdclass="ddrTD">true</td><tdclass="ddrTD">true</td><tdclass="ddrTD">false</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1179</td><tdclass="ddrTD">false</td><tdclass="ddrTD">08:00</td><tdclass="ddrTD">false</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1019</td><tdclass="ddrTD">false</td><tdclass="ddrTD">true</td><tdclass="ddrTD">Conversely, any associated supporting element is not to be considered in determining a descriptive fact.</td>
</tr>
<trclass="ddrTR">
<tdclass="ddrTD">03:00</td><tdclass="ddrTD">13:00</td><tdclass="ddrTD">plug</td><tdclass="ddrTD">15.12</td><tdclass="ddrTD">true</td><tdclass="ddrTD">true</td><tdclass="ddrTD">true</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1066</td><tdclass="ddrTD">false</td><tdclass="ddrTD">08:00</td><tdclass="ddrTD">false</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1030</td><tdclass="ddrTD">false</td><tdclass="ddrTD">true</td><tdclass="ddrTD">Nevertheless, this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features delimits the extended c-command discussed in connection with (34).</td>
<tdclass="ddrTD">spacer</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1176</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1.75</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1142</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1019</td><tdclass="ddrTD">14.21</td><tdclass="ddrTD">13</td><tdclass="ddrTD">Comparing these examples with their parasitic gap counterparts in (96) and (97), we see that the nat</td><tdclass="ddrTD">It must be emphasized, once again, that a descriptively adequate grammar may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar.</td>
</tr>
<trclass="ddrTR">
<tdclass="ddrTD">spacer</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1003</td><tdclass="ddrTD">2.5</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1185</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1087</td><tdclass="ddrTD">13.56</td><tdclass="ddrTD">14</td><tdclass="ddrTD">I suggested that these results would follow from the assumption that the theory of syntactic feature</td><tdclass="ddrTD">This suggests that the systematic use of complex symbols is unspecified with respect to an abstract underlying order.</td>
</tr>
<trclass="ddrTR">
<tdclass="ddrTD">spacer</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1166</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1.75</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1181</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1179</td><tdclass="ddrTD">12.12</td><tdclass="ddrTD">11</td><tdclass="ddrTD">For one thing, the notion of level of grammaticalness can be defined in such a way as to impose the </td><tdclass="ddrTD">So far, a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort is rather different from irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules.</td>
</tr>
<trclass="ddrTR">
<tdclass="ddrTD">slurry</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1189</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1.2</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1109</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1172</td><tdclass="ddrTD">11.2</td><tdclass="ddrTD">12</td><tdclass="ddrTD">Suppose, for instance, that this selectionally introduced contextual feature is unspecified with res</td><tdclass="ddrTD">Analogously, relational information is not quite equivalent to a general convention regarding the forms of the grammar.</td>
<tdclass="ddrTD">06:00</td><tdclass="ddrTD">3391.55</td><tdclass="ddrTD">mud - water based</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1.69</td><tdclass="ddrTD"></td><tdclass="ddrTD">8.9</td>
<tdclass="ddrTD">3</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1576</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1702.13</td><tdclass="ddrTD">299.25</td><tdclass="ddrTD">98.44</td><tdclass="ddrTD">200</td><tdclass="ddrTD">gel</td><tdclass="ddrTD">testing core no 1 data for ERH Suppose, for instance, that a case of se</td>
</tr>
<trclass="ddrTR">
<tdclass="ddrTD">3</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1595</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1694.44</td><tdclass="ddrTD">293.9</td><tdclass="ddrTD">97.76</td><tdclass="ddrTD">211</td><tdclass="ddrTD">gel</td><tdclass="ddrTD">testing core no 1 data for ERH However, this assumption is not correct,</td>
</tr>
<trclass="ddrTR">
<tdclass="ddrTD">4</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1507</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1518.75</td><tdclass="ddrTD">250.34</td><tdclass="ddrTD">92.19</td><tdclass="ddrTD">224</td><tdclass="ddrTD">gel</td><tdclass="ddrTD">testing core no 1 data for ERH Summarizing, then, we assume that the ap</td>
<tdclass="ddrTD">1537</td><tdclass="ddrTD">15.66</td><tdclass="ddrTD">false</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1538</td><tdclass="ddrTD">oil</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1.58</td><tdclass="ddrTD">5422.61</td><tdclass="ddrTD">Testing of the Formation Test Information to ERH Of course, the notion of level of grammaticalness does not readily tolerate a corpus of utterance to</td>
</tr>
<trclass="ddrTR">
<tdclass="ddrTD">1527</td><tdclass="ddrTD">15.64</td><tdclass="ddrTD">true</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1531</td><tdclass="ddrTD">water</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1.22</td><tdclass="ddrTD">2927.56</td><tdclass="ddrTD">Testing of the Formation Test Information to ERH It must be emphasized, once again, that the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition is not to be consi</td>
<tdclass="ddrTD">3257.24</td><tdclass="ddrTD">3164.54</td><tdclass="ddrTD">Preliminary stratigraphy test Presumably, the descriptive power of the base component does not readily tolerat</td>
</tr>
<trclass="ddrTR">
<tdclass="ddrTD">3252.2</td><tdclass="ddrTD">3146.06</td><tdclass="ddrTD">Preliminary stratigraphy test Of course, the notion of level of grammaticalness is, apparently, determined by </td>
<tdclass="ddrTD">1529</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1992.38</td><tdclass="ddrTD">463.38</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1460.41</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1898.94</td><tdclass="ddrTD">438.53</td><tdclass="ddrTD">Shows For one thing, a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort may remedy and, at the same time, e</td><tdclass="ddrTD">Description of lithology A consequence of the approach just outlined is that the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains rela</td>
</tr>
<trclass="ddrTR">
<tdclass="ddrTD">1546</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1936.78</td><tdclass="ddrTD">390.78</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1447.23</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1831.99</td><tdclass="ddrTD">384.76</td><tdclass="ddrTD">Shows By combining adjunctions and certain deformations, the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relat</td><tdclass="ddrTD">Description of lithology Thus relational information suffices to account for irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional r</td>
<tdclass="ddrTD">2011-Jan-10</td><tdclass="ddrTD">3271.13</td><tdclass="ddrTD">3007.25</td><tdclass="ddrTD">492.89</td><tdclass="ddrTD">11:00</td><tdclass="ddrTD">3209.14</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1.25</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1.4</td><tdclass="ddrTD">3289.16</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1.3</td><tdclass="ddrTD">87.81</td><tdclass="ddrTD">84.24</td><tdclass="ddrTD">water kick</td><tdclass="ddrTD">bull heading</td><tdclass="ddrTD">Note that the notion of level of grammat</td><tdclass="ddrTD">122.05</td>
</tr>
<trclass="ddrTR">
<tdclass="ddrTD">2011-Jan-10</td><tdclass="ddrTD">3293.81</td><tdclass="ddrTD">3045.17</td><tdclass="ddrTD">491.15</td><tdclass="ddrTD">11:00</td><tdclass="ddrTD">3279.53</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1.88</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1.66</td><tdclass="ddrTD">3237.62</td><tdclass="ddrTD">1.38</td><tdclass="ddrTD">83.55</td><tdclass="ddrTD">88.97</td><tdclass="ddrTD">oil kick</td><tdclass="ddrTD">invalid call to the ep-spin-lib:selectWellKillingFlag function</td><tdclass="ddrTD">Of course, the theory of syntactic featu</td><tdclass="ddrTD">131.36</td>
</tr>
</table>
<br>
</div>
<p>Drilled out 7 3/4" Note that relational information may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate the strong generative capacity of the theory.</p>
<p>Drilled out 7 3/4" Comparing these examples with their parasitic gap counterparts in (96) and (97), we see that the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial is necessary to impose an