The sample abstract that follows is a solid model written for a class in mineral policy analysis. Given the pre-determined rhetorical context, no time is wasted, and paragraphs are kept both short and detailed. Note that, in accordance with her professor’s guidelines, the writer gives her particular views on the author’s treatment of the subject at the end of her descriptive abstract. She gives a full paragraph to her commentary, even noting how the author might have calculated costs differently to achieve a different outcome. Such detail and commentary show us that the writer both understands her material and can think effectively about it.
Download a PDF of a sample descriptive abstract.
SAMPLE DESCRIPTIVE ABSTRACT
“Oil and National Security,” by Darwin C. Hall, Energy Policy (1992), vol. 20, no. 11
Submitted by Janet Lerner
Keywords: National Energy Security (NES), Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), energy security, oil.
In February 1992, President Bush presented the National Energy Strategy (NES), which is based upon the ideals of a free market. Included in the NES are policies that remove restrictions on oil production and restrictions on the construction of nuclear power plants. This paper attempts to quantify the costs associated with spending on oil imports as they relate to national security and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR).
Energy security is measured by the size of U.S. imports because the Middle East holds the majority of oil reserves, and global oil reserves are being depleted. The consequence of this is that oil prices can be manipulated to harm the United States and its allies. Oil price shocks or supply disruptions instigated by OPEC cause recessions by lowering output, raising prices, and lowering real wages. These effects are determined by applying Granger causality tests.
A benefit of a market-driven price determination system is that prices rise as depletable resources decline, implying increased scarcity. This rise in price gives producers an incentive to develop substitutes as well as reduce consumption of oil.
There is a large divergence between the social cost of energy and market price because of environmental externalities associated with conventional energy sources. The philosophy of the administration is to rely on market prices to determine investment decisions for approximately 20% of the economy. However, misplaced investments based on such a policy have implications lasting many years. Hall concludes that the policies reflected in the NES will result in gross economic inefficiency.
I agree with Hall’s conclusion that misplaced investment in such a large part of the economy is dangerous. I believe that there should be more analysis concerning how varying oil prices affect the costs associated with oil import spending. This would show how vulnerable oil import spending is to price changes. Although Hall mentions the opportunity cost of interest that could have been earned had the amount spent been invested elsewhere, he does not attempt to quantify this amount. I would attempt to calculate these costs using various interest rates. I also believe that he should calculate inventory holding costs, and I am curious to know what the cost of oil deterioration is and whether transportation expenses are involved. These additional costs could be very significant in adding to the costs that Hall has already predicted.