Thanks for the positive comment. I first sent the petition directly to the USGS, with no response. I then asked my Senator to send it for me, which he did, and received an immediate acknowledgment and deadline for a response. I got the response only after following up after the deadline, and basically I was blown off with a non responsive response. Lacking resources to hire lawyers and sue, and having nothing like TOD, I let it drop.

The reporting standards are:
"This petition is submitted under the provisions of Public Law 106-554; H.R. 5658 Section 515 and consistent with the guidelines issued by the Office of Management and Budget as required by that law and section; entitled “Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies, and the guidelines issued by the USGS entitled “Guidelines for Ensuring the Quality of Information Disseminated to the Public”.

The petition concerns the USGS report entitled “US Geological Survey World Petroleum Assessment 2000 – Description and Results” and found at http://greenwood.cr.usgs.gov/energy/WorldEnergy/DDS-60/. This report fails to meet the guidelines referenced above in its entirety, with major issues to be addressed primarily in Chapter ES, IN, AM, OP, RG and AR."

I wanted the report formally withdrawn, removed from the Internet, and copies sent to Congress recalled. Silly, no? Murray

Since I'm posting a message, on another subject, the referenced paper notes that reserve growth has exceeded USGS projection so far. This is clearly a misunderstanding on the part of the authors. There have been only 2 sources of significant "growth":
1)the fact that OPEC reserves don't decline with production, which is probably interpreted as reserve replacement or growth.
2)Canada upped their declared reserves a couple of years ago, by classifying oil sands as petroleum reserves.
The first is phony, and the second is outside the scope of the USGS projection. Maybe Rembrandt could call this issue to the attention of the authors. Murray