Robert and I agreed to limit our comments on this topic to our posts.  

However, I think that we should respond to questions regarding data sources, methodology and math.    I would especially invite scrutiny of my math.  I tried to double check everything, but there is always a good chance that I made a mistake somewhere.

However, I think that we should respond to questions regarding data sources, methodology and math.    I would especially invite scrutiny of my math.  I tried to double check everything, but there is always a good chance that I made a mistake somewhere.

Yes, I agree with that. In fact, I have no problem with you answering any questions here. But I won't respond until I put my essay up. That way the discussion between us isn't smeared all over the place. I want to have one location where the main arguments reside.

As you say, I will work on my response and I should have it up a week from now, presuming someone doesn't claim priority next Monday.

Given the lack of data transparency for Russian and KSA production data, what, briefly, is the basis for the assertion that they have passed 50% Qt?
Russian and KSA production are easily available. The transparency issue is not about production but about reserves, technical field conditions, etc., that make judging future production problematic. And that is where the HL method fits in. It doesn't need that other data. It uses historical production data to help you draw a conclusion.