Second, the "slow squeeze" is Stuart's best view on the next decade or so based on his linearizations. Since his obviously useful Hubbert formulations are a good thing, we need only remember that these are a model of the way things work and not the law.

Fundamental irresolvable discrepancies exist between the "bottom-up" approach of Skrebowski (and CERA) and Stuart's analysis. But it's all short-term stuff. Stuart thinks the peak is likely now. Skrebowski thinks it's in 2010.

Who gives a damn? Big problem either way.

My criticism: we are making rough predictions based on partial information. While this method focuses enough precision on the logistic curves to distinguish individual fields (or wells?) in logistic history, it does not predict the placement or size of future bumps in the tail.

The original, monomodal method is a crude approximation to historic data, but also a crude prediction of undiscovered sources, basing its expectations on the historic end of the bell curve.

For example the historic data through, say, 1956 would probably not anticipate the bump from the recently trumpeted finds in the deep areas of the GoM. But in a hand-waving sort of way, Hubbert does this by expecting a tapering-off rather than a logistic cliff as known reserves are consumed.  

This sort of analysis would be an excellent way of stating proven reserves, wouldn't it? If we don't do any more exploration or drilling, we have exactly this much in the ground right now. The multimodal analysis should give an excellent answer.