China’s GDP May Exceed US GDP by 2017

When measured in purchasing power parity terms (PPP), China’s GDP stood at $7.9 Trillion in 2008, compared to 2008 US GDP of $14.4 Trillion. If China’s GDP growth exceeds US GDP growth by 8% for the next 8 years, then China’s GDP will exceed US GDP by 2017 [1].

China need not continue growing at a 10% clip to surpass the US – it simply needs to exceed US GDP growth by 8%, which it has done for most of the last 3 decades. If the US recovery from the Great Recession is prolonged, it’s quite possible that US GDP growth will hover between 0 and 1% for some time. In that scenario, China need only maintain 8% GDP growth over the next decade. They appear likely to accomplish this feat in both 2008 and 2009, during the heart of the recession!

In nominal (exchange-rate) terms, China’s 2008 GDP was only $4.4 Trillion, still less than a third that of the US. But that will change with a weakening dollar and an appreciating yuan, and this may be accelerated if key commodities like oil eventually begin trading in currencies other than the USD. The NextBigFuture blog takes into account the historical trend of US-Chinese exchange rates, and concludes that even in nominal terms, China’s GDP will surpass US GDP in 2017.

Don’t be surprised if eight hence, China has the world’s largest economy. After all, China and India were the world’s largest economies for most of the last few millenia [2]. The world economic order appears to be reverting to norm.

[1] The US economy was 82% larger than the Chinese economy in 2008, when measured in PPP terms. 8% growth compounded over a decade yields 85% growth (1.08^8) – which means that the Chinese economy will just barely surpass the US economy in eight years if China’s growth continues to exceed US growth by 8%. In concrete terms, assume that China grows at 10% per year over the next eight years, and that the US grows at 2% per year. In 2017, China’s GDP would be $16.9 Trillion, compared to US GDP at $16.85 Trillion.

[2] See the chart on pdf page 4 of this paper presented to the International Conference of Commercial Bank Economists:

Click to access ICCBEChinaIndia.pdf

Posted on by praveenghanta 2

Who Pays Taxes in the US?

While income taxes in the US are skewed to the rich, payroll taxes even out the tax code so that low and middle income workers contribute to government finances.

Conservatives often claim that the richest Americans pay taxes for everyone else, while liberals claim that the rich get away with special treatment at tax time. Which is true, and who really pays the government’s bills in the US?

Government Revenue By Source [1]
Source 2008 Revenue
Personal Income Tax $1,146 Billion
Payroll Tax $901 Billion
Borrowing $459 Billion
Corporate Income Tax $304 Billion
Duties, Excise, Estate, and Other Taxes $175 Billion
Total $2985 Billion

Personal income taxes are the largest single source of government revenue, but payroll taxes are close behind, followed by borrowing, corporate income taxes, and other taxes. How do tax receipts break down by income group? According to The Tax Foundation, 2007 IRS data show that the top 1% of taxpayers paid 40% of income taxes, while the top 10% of taxpayers paid 71% of income taxes. But when payroll taxes are included, the picture looks more balanced:

Government Revenue By Income Group [2]
Source 2008 Revenue
Income and Payroll Tax Paid by Top 10% $1056 Billion
Income and Payroll Tax Paid by Remaining 90% $991 Billion
Borrowing $459 Billion
Corporate Income Tax $304 Billion
Duties, Excise, Estate, and Other Taxes $175 Billion
Total $2985 Billion

The top 10% of individual taxpayers provide 35% of all government revenue, while the bottom 90% provide 33%. Borrowing and corporate taxes provide most of the remainder. When looking at this data, a few interesting facts stand out: While the rich pay far more on an individual basis than middle and lower income individuals, they hardly support the government single-handedly. The richest Americans (the top 1%) also pay an average tax rate significantly lower than the top marginal rate, so they do appear to benefit significantly from deductions and exclusions in the tax code.

[1] The 2010 US Budget Summary Tables provide a breakdown of government revenue by source. PDF page contains the revenue breakdown.

[2] The amount of income tax paid by the top 10% and bottom 90% is taken from the Tax Foundation’s summary of IRS data. For payroll taxes, the breakdown was estimated based on the fact that Social Security taxes are limited to the first $102,000 in income for 2008. Virtually all of the top 10% will be above this limit since the minimum AGI for those in the top 10% was $113,000 for 2007. One complication is estimating how many W-2 wage earners file on a single return. In 2007 there were 153 million individuals in the labor force, but only 141 million returns. We can use this ratio (roughly 1.1) to adjust our calculation. The calculations were also proportionally adjusted for the fact that the Tax Foundation and IRS data is for 2007, while the budget data used is from 2008. The 14 million households in the top 10% pay approximately $240 Billion annually in payroll taxes. The remaining 90% of the workforce pays $660 Billion in payroll taxes.

Posted on by praveenghanta 3

The Mystery of Health Care Pricing

Many economists, think tanks, and politicians have been agitating for more consumer-driven health care in the US. They argue that if consumers have to spend their own money for care, they will tend not to waste health care resources, and they will shop around for cost-effective care. The first part of this argument appears valid, as individuals will always spend their own money most carefully. Studies have validated this hypothesis, showing that individuals with high-deductible insurance and health savings accounts (HSAs) tend to spend less than those on traditional insurance.

But are individuals able to shop for health care in a competitive marketplace? Personal experience and numerous reports indicate otherwise. In the US, most health care providers can’t tell you the price of any particular health care service until after it’s been performed! I recently shopped around for a health care service, and called four doctors’ offices in total. One office told me that they “aren’t allowed to provide that sort of information.” Two more offices were flabbergasted, and attempted to ease their way out of the conversation. Only one office was able to answer with an actual price quote.

Why is this so difficult for medical providers? Virtually all chargeable medical services have associated CPT Codes, which are defined by the American Medical Association [1]. Hospitals, labs, and most medical practices have a chargemaster, which is essentially a price list. Even small practices without explicit chargemasters know the rate their doctor charges for his time. When insurers and medical providers negotiate payment structures, they negotiate using the chargemaster rates (and usually Medicare rates) as starting points for negotiation.

The currently proposed health care reform plans have missed this essential element: require all health care providers to publish standardized price lists, and market competition can begin [2]. For doctors, a simple hourly rate should be enough to satisfy this requirement. Hospitals and labs should be required to initially publish online price lists for their most common charges, with the list expanding over time. While this information is irrelevant to patients in emergency situations, the great majority of health care spending is pre-planned [3].

Put another way, why not include a mandate on medical price lists as part reform? The cost of the mandate to providers is extremely low, as the information is available, and publishing the information online eliminates distribution costs. While price transparency is making slow progress, Congress has an opportunity to make this happen, and should do so as part of the health care reform package.

[1] The AMA would likely be a primary opponent of free publishing of CPT code-based price lists, since it derives signicant ($70M per year) income from its copyright on CPT codes. If the government is to open up the pricing market, it may have to break this monopoly by buying the copyright at fair value and putting it in the public domain.

[2] Consider a scenario in which all doctors are required to provide price lists. Since most small practices would find this difficult, they might just quote a maximum hourly charge. One surgeon might quote $1000 per hour, and another $2000 per hour. And there you have it, competition on price can begin, just as it occurs for plastic surgery, Lasik, and other out-of-pocket services today!

[3] According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, roughly 70% of health care expenditures are non-hospital expenses. Since many hospital expenses are planned, it appears that significantly less than 30% of health care expenses are emergencies in which consumers have no choice of provider. According to ACEP, only 3% of health care costs are emergency-related.

Posted on by praveenghanta 0

Real Unemployment Rate Now Near 14%

As I’ve previously discussed, the government’s official unemployment rate doesn’t take into account all unemployed workers in the US, since it leaves out workers discouraged by the poor job market. The US government’s best measure of unemployment, U-5, now stands at 11%, which means that 1 in 9 Americans are now unemployed.

Prior to 1994, the BLS also counted at half value those workers who were working part time only because they couldn’t find full time employment. The Wall Street Journal explores this issue, and estimates current unemployment at 13.3% using the pre-1994 measurement method. Using this broader measure, 1 in 7 Americans can no longer find enough work.

Posted on by praveenghanta 1

The Failure of Healthcare IT

You can track a package down to the hour online. You can order a pizza online. You probably manage your finances online as well. You can even pay your taxes online! Why can’t you do almost anything with regard to your healthcare online? Why has the IT revolution failed so miserably in the health care industry?

A 2008 nationwide survey found that only 4% of physicians used a fully functional electronic medical records system (EMR). Health care information is certainly complex, but not any more so than information in many other industries. Integrating medical systems and ensuring seamless transfer of patients’ medical information would yield huge benefits, including fewer medical errors, few repeated tests, and less time spent filling forms. The security of modern IT systems has been tested by hackers again and again, but if it’s safe enough for trillions of dollars of financial transactions, it’s safe enough for medical records as well. So why haven’t EMR and health care IT progressed further?

IT Advance Who Benefits? Who Pays?
Electronic Medical Records Patients Doctors and Hospitals pay for installation, and could lose some revenue due to loss of additional tests, checkups, etc
Medical Record Portability Patients Doctors pay to upgrade systems, could lose revenue as above
Billing System Integration Doctors and Insurers Doctors and Insurers
Online Appointment Scheduling, Email Patients Doctors pay for website and systems, lose time spent on email if not reimbursed

Looking at the table above, it becomes obvious why America’s health care system practically guarantees IT will fail! In almost every case, information technology will cost health care providers money, while primarily benefiting patients (and perhaps payers). Why would any sane business invest in an IT system that has low or negative ROI? If health care were a truly free market, then in some areas IT might flourish, as patients demand conveniences like online appointments and control of their medical records. If US health care were dominated by a single payer, that system would enforce health care IT compliance and integration. But the bizarre no-man’s land of American health care reimbursement makes it difficult to advance IT beyond billing integration between providers and payers.

Can this situation be improved? The Obama administration has decided to get involved by offering carrots initially, followed by sticks later. Time will tell if this approach is sufficient to bring health care into the 21st century.

Posted on by praveenghanta 8

How Much Should the US Spend on Defense?

In this time of fiscal constraints and global insecurity, how much should the United States spend on national defense? US defense spending hit $710 Billion in 2008 when foreign wars are included [1], amounting to roughly half of all worldwide defense spending [2]. The table below compares US defense spending with US GDP, with our adversaries’ defense budgets, and with the rest of the world.

Category Amount (2008 USD) Comparison
US Defense Spending $710B 4.98% of 2008 US GDP [3]
World Defense Spending $1470B US share is 48.3% of world defense spending [2]
US Adversaries’ Defense Spending – China, Russia, Iran, Myanmar, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea $217B US Defense spending is 3.3 times that of our adversaries [4]
World Minus NATO $442B US Spends 1.6 times the World minus NATO [5]
World Minus Major US Allies – UK, France, Japan, Germany, Italy, South Korea, Australia, Canada, Israel $473.3B US Spends 1.5 times the World minus major allies [6]

Defense hawks have advocated that the US spend at minimum 4% of GDP on defense annually. This would equate to a defense budget of roughly $570 Billion in 2010, roughly in line with President Obama’s FY10 budget. But aligning defense spending with GDP is somewhat arbitrary, as US defense spending as a percentage of GDP has varied significantly over time.

A more rigorous approach would involve comparing US defense spending to world defense spending, and to its adversaries’ defense spending. The US could match the defense spending of the entire non-NATO world for roughly $450 Billion. With NATO members as long standing allies, the US could match the defense spending of all its theoretical adversaries combined for 37% less than it spends today. The combined defense spending of credible adversaries (China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, and some Arab nations) would still amount to less than half of America’s defense budget!

As the US begins to contemplate fiscal discipline (as lenders slowly run out), cutting the military budget will be unavoidable. Gradually cutting $200B annually from the US defense budget would make a huge impact on the deficit. Thankfully, it appears that cuts of this size can be made without jeopardizing the defense of America itself.

[1] From the US DOD Green Book, FY2009 defense spending appropriations total $709.58 Billion – see pdf page 14 (page 6 as marked on the document) for the FY2009 constant dollars figure.

[2] There are a number of estimates of total worldwide military expenditure. The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation and SIPRI both estimate that total worldwide defense spending equaled roughly $1.47 Trillion in 2008. US spending of $710B equals 48.3% of this total. The Center for Arms Control’s numbers match the US DOD numbers and NATO numbers, lending credibility to these estimates.

[3] The US BEA provides its estimate of 2008 US GDP on page 8 here – $14.264 Trillion.

[4] This estimate includes all potential US adversaries that spent more than $1B on defense in 2008, per the Center for Arms Control. The 2007 estimate for North Korea was used.

[5] NATO countries excluding the US spent $318 Billion on defense in 2007 (see page 4 of the pdf). This number was not inflation adjusted, making it a very conservative estimate for 2008.

[6] All US allies with defense budgets greater than $10B are included here, per the 2008 Center for Arms Control estimates. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Brazil, and Spain are not counted as major allies here, making this a conservative list of major allies. All countries included on this list are secular democracies with almost no likelihood of engaging in future conflict with the US. Collectively, the UK, France, Japan, Germany, Italy, South Korea, Australia, Canada, and Israel spent $287 Billion on defense in 2008.

Posted on by praveenghanta 6

List of Countries with Universal Healthcare

Update 1/21/2013: With the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the ACA (aka Obamacare), and President Obama’s inauguration to a second term today, the US will have universal health care in 2014 using an insurance mandate system.

Thirty-two of the thirty-three developed nations have universal health care, with the United States being the lone exception [1]. The following list, compiled from WHO sources where possible, shows the start date and type of  system used to implement universal health care in each developed country [2]. Note that universal health care does not imply government-only health care, as many countries implementing a universal health care plan continue to have both public and private insurance and medical providers.

Country Start Date of Universal Health Care System Type
Click links for more source material on each country’s health care system.
Norway 1912 Single Payer
New Zealand 1938 Two Tier
Japan 1938 Single Payer
Germany 1941 Insurance Mandate
Belgium 1945 Insurance Mandate
United Kingdom 1948 Single Payer
Kuwait 1950 Single Payer
Sweden 1955 Single Payer
Bahrain 1957 Single Payer
Brunei 1958 Single Payer
Canada 1966 Single Payer
Netherlands 1966 Two-Tier
Austria 1967 Insurance Mandate
United Arab Emirates 1971 Single Payer
Finland 1972 Single Payer
Slovenia 1972 Single Payer
Denmark 1973 Two-Tier
Luxembourg 1973 Insurance Mandate
France 1974 Two-Tier
Australia 1975 Two Tier
Ireland 1977 Two-Tier
Italy 1978 Single Payer
Portugal 1979 Single Payer
Cyprus 1980 Single Payer
Greece 1983 Insurance Mandate
Spain 1986 Single Payer
South Korea 1988 Insurance Mandate
Iceland 1990 Single Payer
Hong Kong 1993 Two-Tier
Singapore 1993 Two-Tier
Switzerland 1994 Insurance Mandate
Israel 1995 Two-Tier
United States 2014? Insurance Mandate

Will the United States join this list in 2014?

[1] Roughly 15% of Americans lack health insurance coverage, so the US clearly has not yet achieved universal health care. There is no universal definition of developed or industrialized nations. For this list, those countries with UN Human Development Index scores above 0.9 on a 0 to 1 scale are considered developed.

[2] The dates given are estimates, since universal health care arrived gradually in many countries. In Germany for instance, government insurance programs began in 1883, but did not reach universality until 1941. Typically the date provided is the date of passage or enactment for a national health care Act mandating insurance or establishing universal health insurance.

System Types:

Single Payer: The government provides insurance for all residents (or citizens) and pays all health care expenses except for co-pays and coinsurance. Providers may be public, private, or a combination of both.

Two-Tier: The government provides or mandates catastrophic or minimum insurance coverage for all residents (or citizens), while allowing the purchase of additional voluntary insurance or fee-for service care when desired. In Singapore all residents receive a catastrophic policy from the government coupled with a health savings account that they use to pay for routine care. In other countries like Ireland and Israel, the government provides a core policy which the majority of the population supplement with private insurance.

Insurance Mandate: The government mandates that all citizens purchase insurance, whether from private, public, or non-profit insurers. In some cases the insurer list is quite restrictive, while in others a healthy private market for insurance is simply regulated and standardized by the government. In this kind of system insurers are barred from rejecting sick individuals, and individuals are required to purchase insurance, in order to prevent typical health care market failures from arising.

Posted on by praveenghanta 506

Medicare Bankrupt in 6-8 Years Without Rationing

Think rationing is impossible in the US? Medicare will soon be bankrupt, and the government will have to spend its healthcare funds in a limited, rationed way.

Medicare’s annual spending exceeded revenue brought in from taxes in 2008, forcing Medicare to begin spending its reserve funds. According to the Medicare Trustees, Medicare’s reserve will be empty by 2017, and Medicare will have to cut benefits or payment rates by 19% to balance its budget [1]. Since the projected date of Medicare’s bankruptcy has been brought forward many times [2], it’s likely that the actual date of bankruptcy may be as early as 2015.

This should come as no surprise to observers of US healthcare policy, since Medicare has limited funds, but nearly unlimited liabilities. Medicare will pay for almost any treatment that a licensed doctor provides, without regard to the effectiveness of that treatment, or its own ability to pay for that treatment.

In the past, politicians have paid for Medicare’s growth through borrowing. That route will be unavailable this time, as US government debt will exceed GDP by next year, and could be over 120% of GDP by 2017. Raising taxes will be difficult as well, since tax revenues will have to be increased just to pay for the existing debt! If Congress and the President fail to curb Medicare cost growth as part of health care reform, the cuts in 2017 will look a lot like California’s budget, where the state was forced to cut $16.1 Billion (18%) from its  in state services across the board.

The current health care reform plans have introduced a variety of cuts in Medicare, which may reduce costs in the short term. But none of the plans under consideration address Medicare’s root problem: Medicare is not allowed to say NO. Rationing health care is not part of the current health care discussion, but it happens covertly today, and it will become the norm. If Medicare is to avoid insolvency, the government will have to decide when some procedures just aren’t worth doing. Seniors should be allowed to pay extra for those procedures, but Medicare will have to limit its responsibility. If you don’t believe me, look at California, where they finally learned that when the money’s gone, it’s gone.

[1] The Medicare Trustees’ Report Summary can be found at: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

The fiscal situation referred to in this post refers specifically to the solvency of the Medicare Part A, the Hospital Insurance (HI) fund. Other parts of Medicare are in slightly better shape, but not by much. In 2017 the HI fund will have revenue for 81% of benefits, but in 2035 it will have revenue for only 50% of benefits.

[2] The Medicare Trustees note that the 2008 Report projected a Medicare HI Fund insolvency date of 2019 – it was brought forward 2 years this year. The solvency calculations also assume that Medicare will cut payments to medical providers based on a Deficit Reduction Act formula – but every year from 2003-2009, these cuts have been rolled back. The likely date of insolvency may move forward by a few more years as a result.

Posted on by praveenghanta 16

Is Peak Oil Real? A List of Countries Past Peak

Only 14 of the 54 oil producing nations in the world are still increasing their oil production. The era of cheap oil is definitively over, as shown below.

Is peak oil real? The BP Statistical Review of World Energy provides the data needed to answer this question. Using the 2009 edition, I have compiled a list of all oil producing countries and regions in the world, along with the production status of each, ordered by year of peak production. BP groups minor producers into categories like “Other Africa”, and “Other Middle East”, and that notation is used here. All production numbers are quoted in barrels/day.

Country Peak Prod. 2008 Prod. % Off Peak Peak Year
United States 11297 7337 -35% 1970
Venezuela 3754 2566 -32% 1970
Libya 3357 1846 -45% 1970
Other Middle East 79 33 -58% 1970
Kuwait 3339 2784 -17% 1972
Iran 6060 4325 -29% 1974
Indonesia 1685 1004 -41% 1977
Romania 313 99 -68% 1977
Trinidad & Tobago 230 149 -35% 1978
Iraq 3489 2423 -31% 1979
Brunei 261 175 -33% 1979
Tunisia 118 89 -25% 1980
Peru 196 120 -39% 1982
Cameroon 181 84 -54% 1985
Other Europe & Eurasia 762 427 -44% 1986
Russian Federation 11484 9886 -14% 1987*
Egypt 941 722 -23% 1993
Other Asia Pacific 276 237 -14% 1993
India 774 766 -1% 1995*
Syria 596 398 -33% 1995
Gabon 365 235 -36% 1996
Argentina 890 682 -23% 1998
Colombia 838 618 -26% 1999
United Kingdom 2909 1544 -47% 1999
Rep. of Congo (Brazzaville) 266 249 -6% 1999*
Uzbekistan 191 111 -42% 1999
Australia 809 556 -31% 2000
Norway 3418 2455 -28% 2001
Oman 961 728 -24% 2001
Yemen 457 305 -33% 2002
Other S. & Cent. America 153 138 -10% 2003*
Mexico 3824 3157 -17% 2004
Malaysia 793 754 -5% 2004*
Vietnam 427 317 -26% 2004
Denmark 390 287 -26% 2004
Other Africa 75 54 -28% 2004*
Nigeria 2580 2170 -16% 2005*
Chad 173 127 -27% 2005*
Italy 127 108 -15% 2005*
Ecuador 545 514 -6% 2006*
Saudi Arabia 11114 10846 -2% 2005 / Growing
Canada 3320 3238 -2% 2007 / Growing
Algeria 2016 1993 -1% 2007 / Growing
Equatorial Guinea 368 361 -2% 2007 / Growing
China 3795 3795 – Growing
United Arab Emirates 2980 2980 – Growing
Brazil 1899 1899 – Growing
Angola 1875 1875 – Growing
Kazakhstan 1554 1554 – Growing
Qatar 1378 1378 – Growing
Azerbaijan 914 914 – Growing
Sudan 480 480 – Growing
Thailand 325 325 – Growing
Turkmenistan 205 205 – Growing
Peaked / Flat Countries Total – 49597 – 60.6% of world oil production
Growing Countries Total – 32223 – 39.4% of world oil production

Only 14 out of 54 oil producing countries and regions in the world continue to increase production, while 30 are definitely past their production peak, and the remaining 10 appear to have flat or declining production [1]. Put another way, peak oil is real in 61% of the oil producing world when weighted by production. Since 2008 capped a record run for oil prices, most countries and oil companies were trying all-out to increase production. While a handful of producers (think Iraq) might be limited by above-ground factors, the majority of producers simply couldn’t do any better in 2008 [2].

The evidence of the demise of the cheap oil era has become insurmountable. In the face of the highest oil prices on record, the great majority of the world’s oil producers were incapable of taking advantage and producing more oil. Many nations including the US saw their oil production peak decades ago – there simply is no turning the clock back. This list shows that we are relying on a small number of countries to keep providing cheap oil. We need to move faster to alternatives and greater energy efficiency, before the last fourteen peak as well.

* More information on these countries:

  • Russian Federation – Russia’s oil production collapsed by the early 90’s as the Soviet Union collapsed, but despite a decade of growth, Russia’s own oil execs don’t think the old peak can be surpassed.
  • India’s production appeared to plateau in 1995, and has stayed within a steady range since. The EIA forecasts Indian oil production to remain flat or decline slightly in the near future.
  • Republic of Congo (Brazzaville) hit a production plateau in 1998, though current production is still very close to 1999 peak levels.
  • Other Central & South America – The remaining countries of the Americas hit a production peak in 2003, though it’s still too soon to know if this will be final peak.
  • Malaysia has been on a production plateau since 1995, and the EIA projects flat or falling production.
  • Other Africa – Oil production in much of Africa is potentially impacted by above-ground constraints, so it’s definitely possible that production will rise here. It will rise from a low base of only 50,000 bpd however, and may not have much impact on total world production.
  • Nigeria is impacted by domestic insurgencies in its oil-producing regions, and may be able to lift production if the political situation improves.
  • Chad’s oil production history is too short to definitively identify a peak in production, but the drop-off since 2005 has been dramatic.
  • Italy has been on a production plateau for over 10 years, and it’s unlikely that a mature economy is significantly under-exploiting its resource potential.
  • Ecuador’s production grew rapidly until 2004, but has leveled off and declined somewhat since then.

[1] To be considered past-peak, a producer’s current (2008) production has to be at least 10% less than its best year, and the best year must have occurred prior to 2005. Some countries’ production has been artificially constrained by political and other non-geological considerations. But in some of these cases, it will be difficult to pass an old peak because decades of depletion have occurred since that peak. Iraq peaked in 1979, making it all the more difficult to pass that now.

[2] While OPEC maintains formal production quotas, it is widely believed that only Saudi Arabia had true spare capacity in 2008, while all other OPEC nations were producing at capacity. The truth is unclear, since OPEC nations do not provide detailed reserve statistics for their oil fields.

Total has created its own short list of oil producers past peak, and Wikipedia has a list here.

Posted on by praveenghanta 13