The best way that I could think of to test the post-peak validity of the HL technique was the excercise that Khebab did with the Lower 48 data.  Post-1970 cumulative Lower 48 production, through 2004, was 99% of what the HL model predicted that it would be--using only 1970 and earlier production data to generate a predicted production profile.  

The same exercise for Russia showed that post-1984 cumulative Russian production was 95% of what the HL model predicted, using only production data through 1984 to generate the predicted production profile.

One problem with this is that the person fitting the data using the HL technique makes a (subjective) choice about where to start the linear fit. To quote Stuart Staniford, "Long experience has taught us that the linearization generally does a bad job in the early part of the history...". Therefore, its possible, after the fact, to choose a starting point for the fit that gives good ageement with the known post-peak data.
 "Therefore, its possible, after the fact, to choose a starting point for the fit that gives good ageement with the known post-peak data."

I proposed the Lower 48/Russian experiment to Khebab, and he chose all of the technical parameters.  If you have read any of his posts, you can tell that Khebab is an objective scientist. IMO, he is a genius.

In any case, Khebab had zero preconceived expectataions of how the results would turn out.  When you look at the actual 1970 and earlier Lower 48 data and actual 1984 and earlier Russian data, they both show very strong HL patterns.

The following link will take you to several Energy Bulletin articles:  http://www.energybulletin.net/news.php?author=jeffrey+brown&keywords=&cat=0&action=searc h

"M. King Hubbert's Lower 48 Prediction Revisited" has the HL modeling of the Lower 48.