Oil Demand

Each day I post a new Online MCAT CARS Passage. This is for anyone who wants to practice for the Critical Analysis and Reasoning Section.

Every article is selected to meet the AAMC MCAT criteria for MCAT CARS.

Subscribe by email to receive a new free practice passage each morning.

May 10, 2017 – Online MCAT CARS Practice

Question: What is your summary of the author’s main ideas. Post your own answer in the comments before reading those made by others.

The conventional wisdom regarding the recent plunge in the price of oil is that we are seeing a repeat of the 1985-1986 collapse, when Saudi Arabia ramped up production as part of a dispute with other members of the OPEC cartel. This time, the thinking goes, Saudi Arabia is doing the same in response to its loss of market share to shale-oil production in the United States.
But there is another parallel that is even more relevant – with important implications for the long-term price of oil. The recent collapse is reminiscent of a similar dive in the price of coal – which crashed from a brief high of $140 a ton in 2008 to about $40 a ton today – which led some deposits to become “financially stranded,” meaning that the cost of developing them outweighs potential returns.

The drop was the result of long-term environmental policies, including programs aimed at mitigating climate change, which undercut demand for coal. Efforts to improve air quality in China, US carbon and mercury emissions standards, cheaper natural gas, and growing investments in renewable energy have all eroded coal’s share of the energy market.
A similar mechanism may be at work in the oil market. As pressure grows on governments to take action to combat climate change, demand for fossil fuels is likely to drop, which could result in prices remaining depressed for longer than the industry anticipates – perhaps forever.

To be sure, some critics – including the British economist Dieter Helm – dismiss the possibility that assets can become stranded. They contend that the absence of serious international efforts to reduce emissions, the cyclical nature of petroleum markets, investors’ short time horizons, and the fact that most oil assets are state-owned make it unlikely that policies to mitigate climate change will have an impact on oil prices.

These arguments are easily rebutted. For starters, while the international community is unlikely to agree any time soon on a global mechanism for putting a price on carbon emissions, other types of environmental policies have already had an effect on demand for oil.

That is a crucial development, because even small shifts in supply or demand can cause large swings in the price of oil. The drop from $120 per barrel in 2014 to under $35 today is the result of a 2% change (roughly two million barrels a day) in the supply-demand balance. That reflects Saudi Arabia’s output increase of more than a million barrels a day, as well as mandated efficiency measures in the European Union, partly motivated by efforts to cut carbon dioxide emissions, which have contributed to a comparable drop in demand – by about 1.5% a year. Similar measures can be expected elsewhere as governments strive to meet the targets pledged under the Paris climate agreement.

Second, though oil prices may be cyclical, structural changes in energy markets are likely to undermine price increases. Alternative transport technologies, including electric cars, static batteries, and hybrid solutions, are already threatening to make oil less necessary.

Third, while many investors do have short time horizons, development of resources in the oil industry can easily extend to more than a decade. That means that the “safe” cash flow from today’s assets can end up invested in the next generation of high-cost assets that are at a far greater risk of stranding.

Finally, the fact that many oil properties are state-owned does not protect investors who have put their money into publicly traded assets. Governments may have strategic reasons to hold onto unprofitable assets, but investors who own shares in partly privatized state firms do not. Furthermore, the first victims of any long-term price decrease will be high-cost producers, many of which are publicly traded, leaving investors more – not less – exposed.

Commodity markets have repeatedly proved vulnerable to expectations that prices will fall. Given the political pressure to mitigate the impact of climate change, smart investors will be watching closely for indications of policies that will lead to a drop in demand and the possibility that their assets will become financially stranded.

It is dangerous to assume that stranding can occur only over the long term. Doing so risks putting investors in the same position as the last shareholders in Peabody Energy, the world’s largest private coal company, which is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. The fact that Peabody Energy is still operating, and thus technically not stranded, is probably of little comfort to its owners.

Adapted from Project Syndicate.


Leave a comment below with what you understood to be the author’s main ideas. Ask about this daily passage in office hours/workshops for help.

Subscribe to my Daily CARS mailing list by entering your email.

The full list of daily articles is available here.

This was an article on Economics.

Have a great day.
Jack Westin
MCAT CARS Instructor.
Contact Information


  1. mustn’t wait for long term effects, oil market may plummet before we know it.


  2. climate change affecting oil, investors not protected


  3. Environmental policies = climate change = impact oil prices/industry


  4. Oil prices are volatile and likely to plummet, so investment in oil is risky.


  5. Oil price is unpredictable and may plummet, hence, investing in it is risky.


  6. With new environmental policies intact and likely going to be enhanced in the future, investment in oil is risky. The market has dropped significantly over the past couple of years, and the future is very unpredictable.


  7. MIP: oil prices potentially falling + policies affecting supply/demand affect $ drastically; tone = neutral


  8. Oil price may plummet like coil price before. Reason – environmental policies.


  9. oil prices fluctuate secondary to environmental policies


  10. Oil price = can change dramatically due to environmental policies and structural changes in energy = risk to investors


  11. keep an eye out for the drop in oil price


  12. MI: oil crash=env change pressure
    tone: neut


  13. oil price dropped due to environmental policies, climate changes.


  14. MI: Changes in oil price very possible due to policies related to climate change.


  15. Oil price is affected by economic, environmental and governmental policies. Author gives supports to environmental policies that have had impact on oil price


  16. MIP: environmental policies impact oil


  17. Oil prices falling due to long term environmental policies. This change in price has big economic impact but finances are relatively safe for now. Important to watch future prices short and long term to reduce risk.


  18. plunge in oil price is more than a cycle –> financial stranded
    policies + structure = impact
    small shifts = big changes
    investors /=/ protected

    author is concerned


  19. Oil prices = volatile due to changing environmental policies.


  20. There has been a plunge in oil prices, which may indicate an upcoming crisis. Disagreement with the fact that this may affect others because of state ownership, cyclical prices, and a lack of government efforts to stop emissions is easily debunked. Therefore, people should be cautious.


  21. Theme: Collapse of oil prices a imminent sign for the oil market and the mechanisms involved in the drop in coal prices are likely to be responsible for the former. Governments pressured to combat climate change and decrease in demand for fossil fuels attributed to crash in oil prices. (central)

    Critics dismiss that oil will not be financially stranded given lack of political will to reduce emissions, cyclical nature of petroleum markets, investor short time horizons and oils assets mostly state-owned so oil prices should be buffered from the climate change policies.

    Author dispels these myths. Environmental policies have already affected oil prices (small shifts …cause large swings…governments strive to meet…..Paris climate agreement). Butterfly effect. Changes in energy markets and alternative transport technologies making oil less necessary. Investors have short time horizons and high cost assets have greater risk of stranding. Investors in state owned but partly privatized assets might not want to hold on to them if they are unprofitable.

    Author is adamant that oil prices will continue to plummet (commodity markets have repeatedly proved vulnerable….smart investors will be watching closely…..possibility that …become financially stranded…dangerous to assume). He brings out the example of Peabody Energy to reiterate that the future is bleak for the oil market.

    Tone: gloomy as author is not very optimistic about the oil market despite other critics who remain upbeat.


  22. MIP: oil prices = declining bc less demand due to climate pol + oil investors not protected


Leave a Reply