We welcome Magara’s discussion of our paper primarily because his questions are essentially the same as those posed by most critics of hydrodynamic theory. This reply affords us an opportunity to answer these familiar questions in print. We might state at the outset that Magara’s discussion indicates a misunderstanding or outright rejection of the principles of hydrodynamic theory and we cannot agree with most of his objections.

In response to Magara’s specific objections to statements made in our paper, we acknowledge that the use of the term “well-defined” in connection with the oil-water contacts in the Dakota and upper Muddy...

First Page Preview

First page PDF preview
You do not currently have access to this article.