Sorry, but I resent your tone in this post. What kind of person are you? Please deal with the facts.

Wait a second. Did you forget that you just asked "What is the portion you don't understand?" I resent your tone. What kind of person are you? There was no portion I didn't understand. The fact that we are still arguing about it says there was a lot you didn't understand. The original claim about ethanol adding 10% to fuel supplies was way wrong. That's it. I have explained why. But you clearly still don't understand, as evidenced by:

If 10 is the total number of gallons used in a certain period and ethanol is 1 of those 10 gallons, clearly ethanol would be at 10%. Would you agree to this math?

Ethanol contains less energy. If you have 10 gallons of gasoline, remove 1 gallon and replace with ethanol, you can't drive the same distance. So you end up having to add more gasoline to the pool to avoid losing energy content. Thus, the math isn't additive. Without ethanol, your pool may be 140 billion gallons. But if 10 of that was from ethanol, and it only contains the energy of 7 billion gallons of gasoline, you have to add 3 billion of gasoline back to the pool. So, because of ethanol, your overall pool has to be bigger. This is where the straightforward math falls down. (Study the example in the last paragraph, and I think you will get it).

But there is a bigger problem here. Your gasoline number is way wrong. The number you supplied above is apparently only domestic production; it only amounts to 80 billion barrels a year. We actually use around 140 billion barrels of just gasoline. We get a lot of gasoline imports, and that all has to meet the ethanol requirements as well. So, our domestic ethanol is blended into that. The number you report above - 3390 million barrels - is only about 60% of our actual gasoline consumption. Correct that and now ethanol has fallen (even by volume) to less than 5%. Add in the other liquid fuels and the 3390 million barrel number is less than 40% of our total consumption. So the ethanol number continues to fall, in direct contrast to the initial number. But I suspect my time is wasted continuing to explain this.

What makes you even think that I don't understand that?

Because of the difficulty you seem to be having understanding the implications of "total liquid fuels", "net energy", and "lower energy content of ethanol." Here's an example. This is hypothetical, but should help you understand. Let's say it took 1 gallon of fossil fuel to make 1 gallon of ethanol. (For this example, we will ignore the lower energy content, which would also impact the final number). Say your initial pool is 9 gallons of fossil fuels. Now take out a gallon of fossil fuels and replace with a gallon of ethanol. But if it took a gallon of fossil fuels to make a gallon of ethanol, the gallon that you took out has to go back in. So the final pool is 10 gallons - 1 gallon of ethanol and still 9 gallons of fossil fuel. Per your argument, you would have replaced 10% of your pool - 1 gallon of ethanol in 10 gallons of product. In reality, you replaced zero. That's what's wrong with your argument.