The second link (to API discussion) appears to be missing the URL?

I scored 7/20 :(

I looked at the first several pages of questions, and my impression was that it looked more like a push-poll or exercise in writing trick questions than a legitimate test of knowledge.  E.g. #5 (makes no distinction between OIL and ENERGY, thus misleading), #7 (irrelevant, but aims at the emotions), and #10 (rolls the likes of oil shale together with renewables).

The authors should be ashamed of themselves.

Gail, thanks for the detailed expose' on the API smoke/mirrors.

history shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men

Gail:
Thanks for your hard work lately. I really appreciate your focus on education. In spite of what the cornocopians say, peak oil isn't a cult or liberal theory. We need to find common ground and focus on finding solutions that help the world adjust.
This quiz is very revealing of the cornocopian perspective. It shows how they see the problem, and their future plans in countering our arguments.
First, the definition of oil. Its obvious that they wish us to accept bitumen and kerogen as oil, eventhough they are raw materials for syncrude and require expensive processing to become synthetic crude oil. Any substance that won't flow doesn't fit my definition of oil.
Second, that imports aren't a problem. This of course is ridiculous-we can't continue to send that much money overseas.
Third, that we're drilling our way out of the peak oil mess

API failed to address the main concern of the world's people, the rising cost of energy, They were careful to point out with spurious figures how little the oil companies make, and how its going to our pensions and 401k plans. They didn't address finding rate or flow rates. These are the areas where they are most vulnerable, and where we need to concentrate our effort.

I might add peak oil is a problem I don't want to win arguments about. I'd much rather see us all get together to solve the common world problem.
Bob Ebersole

This is from API's press release RSS feed:

'Energy IQ' Survey Finds Lack of Knowledge on Key Issues

WASHINGTON, June 27 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- At a time when millions of Americans are focusing on energy issues and policies, a new survey finds that most U.S. adults have a fundamental lack of knowledge regarding energy demand and supplies and the role of America's oil and natural gas companies. In fact, when presented with 20 multiple choice questions, on average more than 25 percent of respondents said they were "not sure," and in many cases people chose the response that is farthest from the correct answer.

"Americans are concerned about energy issues, but they know very little
about where energy comes from, what it takes to get it to market and the
challenges the energy industry faces to meet growing demand," said Jim
Hoskins, Ph.D., senior vice president for Harris Interactive, which
conducted the survey. "This survey shows that when it comes to important
energy questions, the public is not just uninformed, they are misinformed."

"The results of this survey clearly show that we need to do a better
job of communicating with people about the realities of global energy
markets and our industry," said Red Cavaney, API's president and CEO. "Our
companies are committed to sharing our perspectives on energy issues with
policymakers and the public, in the hope that by increasing understanding
we all can work together to enact policies that ensure a reliable,
sustainable energy future now and for generations to come."

API commissioned the online research by Harris Interactive of 1,333
Americans between May 29 and June 4, 2007. Among the survey's key findings:

-- Those surveyed greatly overestimate the amount of oil the United States
imports from the Middle East.

* When asked which country was the largest U.S. supplier of oil, almost
60 percent chose Saudi Arabia, which is actually the fifth largest
supplier, after Canada, Mexico, Nigeria and Venezuela. Only one in 10
people correctly identified Canada as the largest supplier to the
United States.

* Only eight percent correctly noted that less than 15 percent of the
oil the United States consumes comes from Persian Gulf countries;
just over one-quarter of people pegged the figure between 46 and 60
percent -- three to four times higher than the actual figure.

-- Americans seriously overestimate the size of U.S. oil and natural gas
companies relative to competing companies that are owned by foreign
governments.

* When asked "What percentage of the world's 10 biggest oil and natural
gas companies are owned and operated by foreign governments?," only
two percent of respondents knew that all of the top 10 companies fall
into that category.

* Similarly, only eight percent knew that ExxonMobil, the largest U.S.
oil and natural gas company, was not among the top 10 largest oil
reserve holders. More than one in three people (36 percent) thought
ExxonMobil was among the top three largest companies.

-- The public underestimates the continued importance of fossil fuels in
meeting global energy demand in the next 25 years, and overestimates
the impact renewable sources will have in meeting that demand.

* While the International Energy Agency projects that 81 percent of
global energy demand in 2030 will be met by fossil fuels like oil,
natural gas and coal, only 14 percent of respondents chose this
answer. The majority thought it would be 61 percent or less.

* While the U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that less
than 10 percent of U.S. energy use will be supplied by renewable
sources in 2030, only five percent of respondents chose this answer.
More than one in three people (34 percent) thought renewable sources
would account for 20 percent or more.

-- People overestimate the profits of U.S. oil and natural gas companies
and have very little understanding of the significant investments these
companies are making in emerging energy technologies.

* On profits, 42 percent of respondents guessed that the industry
earned between 16 and 20 cents on every dollar of gasoline sales in
2006. In fact, the industry earned 9.5 cents -- a choice (6 to 10
cents) selected by only 14 percent of respondents.

* On investments, only seven percent correctly estimated that U.S. oil
and natural gas companies invested almost $100 billion in emerging
energy technologies in North America alone between 2000 and 2005.
More than one third estimated less than $25 billion, the lowest
possible choice.

For complete text of the survey and more information -- including
survey methodology -- please go to http://www.energytomorrow.org.

I presume since this is a press release API doesn't have a problem with me copying it. The link is http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/0...

4. According to 2006 projections, what percentage of global energy demand in 2030 will be met by fossil fuels, such as oil, natural gas and coal?

- and how do they define "demand"? Will fossil fuels meet the 2007 level in 2030, let alone a growing "demand"? And what percent of the "fossil fuels" supply will be oil (rather than coal) by 2030?

5. What percentage of U.S. domestic energy needs are currently met by imports?

- misleading question as others noted. Covering up the current lack of a substitute for oil in transportation specifically. Also does not mention the major outsourcing of energy-hungry manufacturing to other countries in recent years. E.g., much of the production of nitrogen fertilizer from natural gas, so our food is now dependent on imports of fertlizer. And of course all the doo-dads made in China, from shoes to nails.

9. Current government policy restricts access to what percentage of potential offshore U.S. oil and natural gas development sites off the coasts of the lower 48 states?

- another misleading question. What is "potential", do they leave any area out? And how is the percentage computed, by area, number of sites, or by "potential" amounts of oil and gas? And of course they are only counting "potential" sites, not the ones already developed, thus masking the fact that the most productive sites have already been used up, and the "potential" sites will probably not add a large percentage to the total?

10. From 2000 through 2005, U.S. oil and natural gas companies invested how many billions of dollars in emerging energy technologies in North America (such as biomass, wind, solar, alternative fuel vehicles, gas-to-liquids and oil shale)?

- which companies invested how much in what? The words "such as" imply that there are other "emerging energy technologies" not listed, and perhaps they got a lot of the money? E.g., tar sands? Coal to liquids? Nuclear?

11. According to Oil and Gas Journal, at 2006 production rates, how many years will the global "known reserves" of oil last?

- and how long will they last at exponentially growing rates of extraction? And what are the feasible rates of extraction as we get further into the harder-to-extract tail end of the reserves? (Which is the main point of "peak oil theory".)

13. According to 2007 projections, what percentage of U.S. energy will be supplied by renewable sources by 2030?

- whose projections, and what are they based on? Probably assumes an exponential increase of fossil fuel usage, along with some growth in renewables? What happens to the percentage if the fossil fuel supply shrinks?

14. What percentage of gasoline used in the U.S. would be replaced by ethanol, using current corn-based production technology, if every acre of corn was used for ethanol production exclusively?

- does not count fossil fuels used to grow and process the corn and ethanol, i.e., it's the gross, not the net, amount. Since the fuels used for that are mostly diesel, natural gas and coal, and they said "gasoline", they may be technically correct but still misleading.

17. In the history of the world, the energy industry has produced about a trillion barrels of oil and developed about another trillion into proved reserves for future production. How much recoverable conventional oil does the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimate remains to be discovered in the future?

- note it says "conventional oil ... remains to be discovered ... Between 1 and 2 times the amount of oil that has already been produced". Is even the USGS that optimistic?

Another point that should always be taken into consideration is the energy content of all imports other than oil and energy in general.

When the US outsourced to China large swaths of their former manufacturing industry the American lifestyle didn't magically become less energy-dependent.

Just to note - the Heading Out mentioned in the post wasn't me.

Our species has mortally wounded our habitat. It will take radical and immediate change, work and prayer to salvage enough habitat so that some people might survive the next century.

Meanwhile we are ending the history of our species with an overwhelming flood of corporatist public relations lies, a cacaphony of the battle sounds of resource wars, and the enraged screams and resigned whimpers of the poor.

Thanks to Gail for writing this up. I am increasingly resigned to the reality that our species is unwilling to sacrifice even a little for the benefit of future generations.

Didn't Admiral Rickover end his 1957 speech with a call for modest sacrifices to direct resources from consumer goods to education and efforts to address energy issues? We in the USA chose consumerism as a lifestyle made possible by war as our primary tool of foreign policy.

Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas warned that by 1968 The Establishment had put down the rebellion in the USA and was well on the way to spreading this consumerism and war over the entire planet.

I suppose I will keep trying to do my little bit, but this API propaganda does not encourage me.

At best I will try to learn how to communicate better, but we are immeresed in a sea of intentional ignorance which makes it difficult to show the need for us to change the way we live.

I speak with little corporate Eichmanns every day who simply think that life consists of keeping the corporatist wheels turning and a consumerist lifestyle as a reward.

sigh. :)

I just noticed there is an energy quiz on CNN:

http://money.cnn.com/quizzes/2007/news/energy_iq/index.html

THE PUSH POLL, AND WHAT THEY ARE PUSHING

Gail,
Hard and involved work and a fascinating analysis on your part! Great work!
:-)

This string fascinates me, because over the last 9 years, my "paying" job has been in market and media research, so polls, pre-selection bias in polls, and "push polls" (polls as a device not to test for knowledge, but to promote a particular perspective on knowledge) I am well familiar with.

So, what does the construction of, and the results of this little poll tell us? First, a few caveats:

-There is no way to deny that this poll is obviously “pre-selected” by it’s very format and nature, and the pre-selection is not a planned thing by API (at least we assume not), but would be a part of any internet poll. I could not find that any real in depth discussion of selection methods, and do not know whether it was Harris or API who did the selecting. So, American “energy knowledge” at large may be much less than even this poll would indicate

-However, the poll, as has been discussed by other posters, is not designed to test “energy knowledge” per se, but instead to see how many respondents view conform to the API definition of “energy knowledge”. I say that not as a pejorative, but simply to point out that the “right” answer in the case of many of the questions would be debatable (this is of course somewhat true of the “peak oil” energy quiz given here on TOD as well. Only the math based “factual” questions can be taken as anything other than conjecture.

-Once we make the assumption that the poll is indeed of the push poll type, we of course can analyze what is being “pushed”. Gail has already done an exceptional job of this, and rather than duplicate her work, we are best to simply add any comment we may have to it.

-By Gail’s count, the largest number of questions intending to prove a point was 6 questions, the point being, according to Gail, Renewable resources are not expected to scale up very well. Therefore oil and other fossil fuels will be needed for a long time. (Q 4, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)

Let us pause for a moment. THIS IS CRUCIAL. Anyone who reads TOD comments should have seen my numerous posts on exactly this issue. I have made the case that the petroleum industry is and will continue to engage in a public relations campaign to push the American people away from the belief that alternative energy is possible. I have said (my view) that the industry will engage in increasingly desperate, misleading, and bogus attacks on the alternative energy industry. I ask, is it possible that in a poll that claims to be about “energy knowledge” in which the most number of questions are based on a repeated refutation of any alternatives, we are not seeing one more tool in that continuing attack? This is why I BEG those who are “peak aware” to be careful about attacks on the hard work and great gains made by those in the alternative energy industry. It is simply repeating the petroleum industry message, and reduces the possibility of alternatives being accepted at all. If the alternative clearly can be proven to be impossible, yes, we should say it. If the alternative is clearly destructive of our real needed efforts to conserve all fossil fuels, yes, say it. This is why I accept the API position on ethanol as not being a viable alternative and clearly destructive to our goals as a nation and destructive to the world. It is simply a horrible political program and in no way a solution. This can also be said of the “hydrogen economy” IF it is put forth in a centralized, natural gas based program. The “hydrogen economy” as it is envisioned by the administration indeed WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY NOT WORK. But, there are other ways to do it, just as there may be other bio-fuels methods that have hope. The goal of the API is to demonstrate, without a doubt, that NO ALTERNATIVE WILL WORK.

-The other major point the API is attempting to make is

5. Imports are not as serious an issue as people think they are. (Q 5, 18, 19, 20)

6. There is lots of oil out there, if US oil companies could just get to it. (Q 3, 9, 11, 17)
These tied at second most questions with 4 questions each intended to make these points.

Of course, if you accept that “no alternatives will work” you must accept that there is still plenty of oil and gas ot there, or you have the full doomer catastrophe on your hands!

If you look at the situation from the API questions and “correct” answers, you can get the message down to one simple phrase:
“There is one solution: We’re it.”

Of course, there is reason for the “peak” community to take heart!

At least 25% agree with the peak oil position that the world has already produced “About half of the oil that has already been produced”, 40% saying “Not sure”, per question 17. This means if the “peak” community can persuade only half of the “unsure” community, you would have fully 40% accepting the “peak oil” position. Astonishing, and more proof of why the energy industry is now mounting a very concerted public relations campaign. That 40% will also be a promising customer base for alternative energy such as plug hybrid cars, electric cars, PV solar systems, wind projects, and conservation ideas such as insulation, ground coupled geo-thermal heat pumps, and EnergyStar type appliances.

The time is nigh for the entrenched energy industry to kill the alternatives in the crib. Don’t help them.

Roger Conner Jr.
Remember we are only one cubic mile from freedom

I used to post on the Cost of Energy web site, not any more. It is just an ego toy for Lou, who loves his acolytes fawning all over him ..."oh Lou..I agree totally!".

Ive got a dumass ? for API and their members...when will we see those 50 cetane stickers applied to all the ULSD pumps in the country?

Arthur Robey

The only leverage I can get into the Lemmings minds is to ask them "Do you think petrol will be cheaper next year or more expensive?"
More than that they cannot digest.
But hey! I should be grateful that they are volunteering.

Heaven thunders the truth.

I think, this quiz is not fit at all to evaluate the "energy knowledge" of Americans. It is far too specific questions with way too specific answers.

Let's take a look at the results. Just from the percentages for the most frequent answers and the percentages for the correct answers, it seems like Q7,9,11,17 where answered by wild guessing, since there has to be an almost equal distribution between the non-not-sure answers.

Furhtermore, what also hasn't been stated very clearly yet is the fact, that many of the answers pointed out as the correct ones are hardly more than opinions. (e.g. Q9, Q13, and especially Q16). This has been criticized in Gail's quiz, it should be mentioned that this problem is also present here.

I also wonder, what a further statistical in-depth analysis of the answers would bring to light. If, for example, the answer closest to the correct one was given most frequently, I would not consider this as a total lack of knowledge.

6. In 2006, how many cents did the U.S. oil and natural gas industry earn in profit on every dollar of gasoline sales?

This is the most interesting question. Oil went from $20 to $60. and the profit margin stayed stuck in single digits. API needs to be able to explain this one to the public. Their explanation will either enhance their credibility or expose them as a rank apoligist.