Well, keep in mind charts are designed to sell feeders. The low overall percentage of fat can be quite misleading in many ways. My ultimate opinion is that they are probably too fatty to be a main staple. I would note, that is my opinion and mainly just that. It comes from lot's of reading and references here and there and nothing else. I don't have experience directly with butterworms, so I can't give you real life experiences.
What I can give you is that butterworms are considered by many hobbiests and breeders both to be as high in fat as waxworms. They are commonly used to help in putting weight on skinny reptiles.
http://www.beautifuldragons.503xtreme.com/Nutrition.html has them listed as feed occasionally (this site is almost a bible for feeding here) The calories to fat is 87% according to "charts" Even here
http://www.silkwormshop.com/benefits.html lists the percentage of fat to a kilo of calcium at 73% which is the same as waxworms. For every one unit of calcium, 73% of the mass necessary to deliver that calcium is fat. They may be higher than any other feeder in calcium, but to achieve that a lot of fat comes along with it as well.
All the common feeder worms are larval stages of insects and they require high fat reserves in order to complete pupation. It is a balancing act between fat/nutrients to know which are the best. Some worms are better than others. It is my personal opinion that butters are overall too fatty to be used as a main staple. A secondary staple as I mentioned in another thread and I think they should be ok, assuming you monitor your animal appropriately.