But why lament energy ignorance when there are so many other vast and easier areas of ignorance: 1) A man-on-the street reporter asked passers-by, “What is 50% of 70.” He never did get a correct answer.2) In an advanced placement English seminar at a California University the Professor learned that not one person in the class could IN ANY WAY identify Chaucer or Beowulf. 3) At a California high school named “James Madison” a reporter could not find a student who could identify Madison. The history teacher was quick to excuse this ignorance by saying, “He really wasn’t a very important president.” 4) Less than half of graduating seniors at a Balimore HS could find France on a map. 5) A ranger at the Grand Canyon told me he has frequently been asked if that’s Canada on the far rim.

So when I frequently hear there isn’t any water problem because most of the world is covered with water I can only sigh and nod.

The phrase ‘the world’s reserves’ in these contexts almost invariably contains within it the assumption that OPEC’s reserves claims can be taken at face value, whereas the best evidence is that they are overstated by around 300 billion barrels, or about a quarter of the official figure for the world’s proven reserves.

A better comparison would be between the 25 percent of daily global production consumed and the ( I think) around 8 percent produced. Incidentally, the latter might be a reasonable first guess at the actual figures for the share of world reserves held by the U.S. - to the extent that the focus on ‘reserves’ rather than production is even very meaningful.

I have heard it suggested that many of the U.S. stripper (electrical lift) wells may actually be net energy losers. I would like to see this question explored in more detail. But if many of these wells are only being produced because of tax subsidies, current production levels, if used as a base for estimates of ‘reserves’ might overstate the latter.

If so, considering the above factors, the actual U.S. share of world reserves might be in the 4-6 percent range - again, to the extent that a focus on ‘reserves’ is even meaningful.

I gotta agree–>our leadership [both political parties], are more likely to pass policies that will make things much worse than they actually need to be.

As you already know: I have long been encouraging Peak Outreach on a massive scale, at every level of society, to try and raise the national knowledge level of energy, and how it affects every item, process, and habitat required for our existence.

I am especially concerned on elevated extinction rates and our postPeak ability to feed ourselves as we 6.7 billion now essentially eat fossil fuels from the input form of industrial or inorganic fertilizer [What I label as I-NPK] to grow much of our crops. Nobel Prize Winner Norman Borlaug said it best: “Without inorganic fertilizer–It’s Game Over”.