Well I've compared a few points from Henke's critique and Humphreys reply. I find that in general Humphreys does not adequately deal with Henke's points.
To take a simple one, Henke states:
Nevertheless, a review of the subsurface geology of the Fenton Hill borehole site as described in Sasada (1989, Figure 2, p. 258 - NOT "Sakada" as listed in the references of Humphreys et al., 2003a, p. 16 and Humphreys et al., 2004, p. 16) indicates that a granodiorite is not encountered at the site until depths of more than 2500 meters. According to Sasada (1989, p. 258), Precambrian gneisses and mafic schists occur between depths of 722 meters and to slightly below 2500 meters. In particular, at depths of 750 and 1490 meters
Humphreys quotes Baumgardner as claiming that :
...there are occasional veins of material other than the coarse-grained granodiorite that forms the majority of the core...
No explanation is offered for the disagreement between Henke's reading of Sasada and Baumgardner's statement.
Or to take another obvious - and very serious - issue, Humphreys reply stops BEFORE getting to Henke's section titled:
"MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS, INCONSISTENCIES AND OTHER PROBLEMS IN THE HUMPHREYS ET AL. "MODELS"
Major parts of Henke's criticism are not addressed at all.