We've all seen this movie before. The public is wincing as it tops off the tanks of millions of sport utility vehicles. Irate congressmen and presidential candidates are demanding investigations into high gasoline prices. We hear that Big Oil is gouging the American public. The oil and gas industry spends proportionally less on advertising, promotion and public education than many other industries. Perhaps it is time to engage in some honest self-examination to determine if the industry can achieve an acceptable return on its investment in energy education and information programs. The question is pertinent from a shareholder's perspective and that of corporate management as well. Results from education and public-relations programs can be hard to quantify and can take time to appear. Meanwhile, an educational campaign must function in a culture that requires instant gratification and quick payout, and a change in how society views energy-and, thus, the industry-is not a short-term goal. The energy industry will always have to deal with geologic uncertainty, price volatility, technological innovation and obsolescence. However, an informed public can have a very positive impact on the bottom line. This comes from the stabilization of the regulatory and tax environment that results from the policies that this informed public will support. An extreme example would be a public that tells its elected officials that it wants more oil and gas to be produced domestically, and is willing to pay a higher price for that, because the public does not want the oil to come from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska. In this scenario, the energy industry could stop spending money on lobbying to get ANWR open. Regardless of an assumption that investment in education can improve bottom lines, are the returns adequate? Adequacy is determined by measurement against defined goals and objectives. One possible objective is achievement of good corporate citizenship that is beyond reproach, like motherhood, apple pie and the flag. If this is the case, then the investment is meeting its objective. But if the objective is the promotion of a specific agenda, then present efforts are ineffective. Otherwise we would not see public outrage over energy price spikes or shortages, or environmental accidents. The energy industry continues to confront the Nimby syndrome (Not in My Back Yard), and a recent offspring, Banana (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything). The objective could be to get the public (starting with K-12 students and teachers) to recognize how important energy is to their quality of life, including their economic well being. Students may be encouraged to pursue a career in the energy industry. Yet, the industry seems to have little self-esteem, in spite of its efforts. At many conferences I have conducted an unscientific survey: I ask how many in the audience have children of school age. About half the hands go up. Then I ask how many among those people are pushing their children toward a career in the energy industry. Very few hands remain up. Where will the industry find its next generation of engineers, earth scientists or entrepreneurs when we need them? Especially if we do not even believe in ourselves? So, we come back to the basic question: is education a sound investment for the energy industry to undertake? From a pure, short-term return on investment perspective, an alternative is to stop wasting money on ineffective programs and pay a higher dividend to investors, or drill more wells. There are some in the industry who agree that education is a good concept, but they want someone else to fund it. However, there is no requirement for energy to be a topic in school systems. If the energy industry will not invest in sound, balanced, basic educational programs or initiatives on energy, who will? In starting the Energy Literacy Project (ELP), we have found that there are those in the industry who do think that trying to change the public's perception of energy is a worthwhile goal, in spite of the time that will be required. In addition, they believe that education, as a means to that goal, is a core investment the industry must support regardless of economic times. (Keyword: Investment, not a charitable contribution regardless of tax treatment.) Supply and demand In spite of few or no requirements in K-12 curricula for energy to be covered, science coordinators and teachers realize that this is a very important topic and are constantly looking for good material to augment their required programs. In 1996 Carol Rylander, then the chair of the Texas Railroad Commission, helped establish September as Texas Energy Awareness Month, because the Commission recognized how inadequate energy education was in the schools of an energy state like Texas. To build awareness, the TRC sent a letter to each school district mentioning several programs that could be helpful for energy education. Although no more than a start-up concept, the ELP was included in this letter. Within two weeks, the ELP had received calls from 21 schools asking for more information. This was based on the ELP's instructional premise of combining energy, the economy and the environment-the three Es-into the same package. Teachers are delighted to have industry representatives offer any program in the classroom (after all, it's one less lesson plan they have to create), especially if it is a good program. However, teachers tell us that they are concerned with getting a complete picture with good science, alternatives and cost-benefit analysis. In other words, they demand balance: discussion of energy, the environment and the economy. Teachers and science coordinators also express a uniform concern about being overwhelmed by the amount of material available. There are at least 325 programs available, as identified by the Department of Energy and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. Only 11 are on both lists. The National Mining Association (NMA) is preparing a similar list that will indicate how the programs meet education standards. With the exception of some in the DOE compilation, these lists are primarily of upstream programs. (See the web site energy-literacy.org for other databases of educational resources.) The Environmental Literacy Council is culling through these lists and other resources to determine which programs do a good job in the environmental area. Their efforts will result in recommended texts and programs that meet the council's standards. (The organization came into existence because several people concerned about the environment concluded that the way environmental topics were being taught in the school systems was giving the environmental movement a bad name. The council promotes balance via the discussion of alternatives and cost-benefit analysis, and other issues.) Few of these programs address the economics of energy, yet it is the economic hook that gives the energy theme real meaning for teachers, students and the public in general. This hook is the economic well being that comes from the availability and affordability of energy, and the quality of life that comes from its consumption. Consumers believe cheap and abundant energy is a Constitutional right, and this is a key misperception that energy education must address. The gee-whiz of the science of energy extraction and generation is fun, and exciting, but insufficient to impress students with the importance of energy. The ELP would love to see a trade association for BTUs that promotes balanced and unbiased education, rather than the hodgepodge of material now coming from the energy industry. However, even the education programs from the DOE compete with each other, promoting one laboratory's agenda over another. Does any one or a combination of these programs meet the needs of comprehensive energy education? A balanced program This brings up the second concern. One can always argue over the wisdom of National Science Education Standards. However, they exist and are a part of the educational system. With the exception of the NMA, there are no indications as to which of those programs meet educational standards. Regardless of a teacher's desire to cover the topic of energy, the teacher must meet state and district requirements. If it is not known if a particular program meets those standards, the use of that program will be, at best, entertainment. The ELP's study at the Colorado School of Mines is aimed at reviewing available programs to identify which ones offer the balance that recognizes the interlocking nature of energy, the economy and the environment. Initial findings show that no programs link all three Es. While lacking balance and not offering the total picture that teachers seem to want, many programs are very good in one E or another, and may even meet various educational standards. However, the industry can get a much higher return on its investment by supporting some basic, fundamental educational programs that incorporate much of this material and make those programs easier to understand. The ELP intends to work toward this cultural change by building basic, core programs from currently available products (only designing new material where holes are found.) This effort should be very cost effective in that the ELP will not be reinventing the wheel. One other key is to recognize that the messenger is just as important as the message. We must admit that in spite of the quality of any program, if it is identified as coming from the energy industry, it has a lot of baggage and may be dismissed out of hand. That's why the ELP is negotiating with such neutrally credible and prestigious organizations as the National Geographic Society, to include the ELP's material in their education portfolio. In addition, working with an existing infrastructure will further reduce costs. It is this unique combination of basic, balanced product and an industry-neutral delivery system that has encouraged industry leaders to support the ELP. A basic goal is to have Energy Literacy 101 regarded as a prerequisite course before more advanced ones in oil and gas, coal, nuclear or renewable energy, or even energy policy, can be understood. Aiming initially at K-12 is an excellent field test of the concept of balance in the three Es. While teachers have expressed frustration at what is offered, they have not truly articulated what they desire. By offering this approach, we will find out what teachers really want and, if so, how effective the program is. In January 1999, I asked the rhetorical question: is the industry prepared for the public's reaction to a recovery in prices? The public's reaction to gasoline prices reaching levels not seen in a decade was to be expected. However, regardless of how daunting a task, we must start with credible, unbiased, long-term public education-or live with the consequences and stop complaining. Demand for better energy education presents a real opportunity. Is the industry willing to meet this demand? M John Tobin is executive director of The Energy Literacy Project Inc. and the principal of Applied Planning Associates, an Evergreen, Colorado, consulting firm that specializes in addressing commodity-price uncertainty. Prior experience includes positions with Arco, Scientific Software Corp., Martin Marietta and Eastman Kodak. He has bachelor's and master's of science degrees in engineering from the University of Rochester, New York. The ELP recognizes the research efforts of the graduate program at the Colorado School of Mines (Golden, Colorado), Becca Wissbaum, John Brinks, Dax Routh and faculty advisor Craig Van Kirk.