- 28717, 3,638, Whiting, P Johnson 153-98-1-6-7-16HA, Truax, t8/15; cum 172K 12/15; see separate post here;
- 29572, 1,145, HRC, Fort Berthold 148-04-33D-28-7H, McGregory Buttes, t8/15; cum 60K 12/15, and off-line for the past two months;
- 29748, 881, CLR, Helena 5-7H1, Brooklyn, t9/15; cum 42K 12/15;
- 30326, SI/NC, BR, Old Hickory 41-32TFH, Sand Creek, no production data,
- 30797, SI/NC, XTO, Big Gulch Federal 41X-16A, Haystack Butte, no production data,
- 30958, SI/NC, EOG, Van Hook 66-3606H, Parshall, no production data,
- 31583, SI/NC, Newfield, Larsen 152-96-16-21-5HLW, Westberg, no production data,
Petro-Hunt cancels three permits: two Carlson permits and one Setterlund permit, all in Burke County.
Three (3) producing wells completed:
- 28099, 174, Hess, EN-Dobrovolny A-155-94-2413H-7, Manitou, t1/16 cum --
- 29768, 1,037, Hess, EN-L Cvancara-155-93-2627H-10, Robinson Lake, t2/16; cum --
- 30456, 1,558, Statoil, Panzer 22-23 8H, Alger, t1/16; cum --
****************************************
Date | Oil Runs | MCF Sold |
---|---|---|
12-2015 | 11695 | 14317 |
11-2015 | 11079 | 11746 |
10-2015 | 7450 | 9241 |
9-2015 | 10772 | 8510 |
8-2015 | 484 | 0 |
29572, see below, HRC, Fort Berthold 148-04-33D-28-7H, McGregory Buttes:
Pool | Date | Days | BBLS Oil | Runs | BBLS Water | MCF Prod | MCF Sold | Vent/Flare |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BAKKEN | 12-2015 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
BAKKEN | 11-2015 | 6 | 4871 | 4975 | 3337 | 3546 | 3033 | 471 |
BAKKEN | 10-2015 | 24 | 15263 | 15489 | 19672 | 16524 | 13773 | 2583 |
BAKKEN | 9-2015 | 30 | 31621 | 30845 | 45238 | 31264 | 21841 | 9213 |
BAKKEN | 8-2015 | 29 | 8175 | 8124 | 12609 | 8992 | 5432 | 3357 |
28717, see above, Whiting, P Johnson 153-98-1-6-7-16HA, Truax:
Date | Oil Runs | MCF Sold |
---|---|---|
12-2015 | 27919 | 21773 |
11-2015 | 36212 | 30947 |
10-2015 | 42168 | 12274 |
9-2015 | 40949 | 540 |
8-2015 | 24313 | 0 |
********************************
2/22/2016 | 02/22/2015 | 02/22/2014 | 02/22/2013 | 02/22/2012 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Active Rigs | 39 | 127 | 187 | 183 | 203 |
***********************************
The Medical Page
The Medical Page
Meanwhile in Canada, the headline: colonoscopy should not be used to screen adults for colon cancer. Incredibly, the story did not say that at all. Here's the linked story:
The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health care recommends that colonoscopy should not be used to screen adults for colon cancer. Instead, they suggest testing for microscopic amounts of blood in the stool.
Colon cancer screening programs aim to identify and remove polyps that can sometimes become cancerous. Currently, all Canadian programs recommend screening using stool tests, with so-called guaiac fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT) or fecal immunochemical testing (FIT).
Today in the journal CMAJ, the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, an independent panel of clinicians and methodologists, presents its updated recommendations for screening for colon cancer in adults aged 50 years and older who have no symptoms and who are not at a high risk for colon cancer.
Opposition to colonoscopy as a primary screening test for colon cancer stems from the lack of evidence showing it to be any better than other screening methods, the Task Force says.
The task force makes a strong recommendation for screening adults aged 60 to 74 with FOBT or FIT every 2 years or flexible sigmoidoscopy every 10 years, and they make a weak recommendation for using a similar approach in adults aged 50 to 59.
The task force recommends against screening adults aged 75 years and older because existing studies do not demonstrate an improvement in colon cancer mortality from such screening.One could almost argue that after age 75 screening for almost any disease in low risk patients is unwarranted or in patients without signs or symptoms of underlying disease.
That's a whole lot different that saying Canadian Task Fork does not recommend using colonoscopy to screen adults for colon cancer.
The Canadian recommendations are about the same (one can argue, "even stronger" than) the US American Cancer Society recommendations. I'm disappointed with the way Reuters Health wrote the Canadian article.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.