Skip to main content
Home

Main navigation

  • Centers & Programs
    • Centers
      • Center for Energy Studies
      • Center for Health and Biosciences
      • Center for the Middle East
      • Center for Public Finance
      • Center for the U.S. and Mexico
      • McNair Center
      Center for Energy Studies
      Providing new insights on the role of economics, policy and regulation in the performance and evolution of energy markets.
      More Details
      The globe at night, lights in populated areas illuminated
      Center for Health and Biosciences
      Advancing data-based policies that promote health and well-being in the U.S. and around the world.
      More Details
      Female healthcare worker lifts finger to press digital buttons featuring topical iconography
      Edward P. Djerejian Center for the Middle East
      Developing pragmatic policy approaches to the region’s enduring political, economic and societal concerns.
      More Details
      Topographic map of Middle East
      Center for Public Finance
      Delivering research and analysis on the effects of major U.S. fiscal policies.
      More Details
      Stack of coins with mathematical figure overlays
      Center for the U.S. and Mexico
      Strengthening the binational relationship by addressing major concerns on both sides of the border.
      More Details
      Textured flags of America and Mexico
      McNair Center for Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth
      Providing actionable policy analysis and recommendations that aim to expand the economy through private enterprise.
      More Details
      Professionals gather around a large table with laptops, printed documents and coffee cups for a business meeting
    • Programs
      • China Studies
      • Drug Policy
      • International Economics
      • Presidential Elections
      • Religion & Public Policy
      • Science & Technology Policy
      • Space Policy
      China Studies
      Analyzing the influence of the transnational circulation of people, technologies, commodities and ideas in China.
      Read More
      Person walks alongside large banner with Chinese characters
      Drug Policy
      Pursuing research and open debate to develop pragmatic drug policies based on common sense and driven by human rights interests.
      Read More
      Marijuana
      International Economics
      Studying timely issues in global economic policy as well as developmental policy in foreign countries.
      Read More
      International paper currencies stacked together, showing range of colors and styles
      Presidential Elections
      Offering nonpartisan analysis of elections to better understand the changing dynamics of presidential campaigns.
      Read More
      An assortment of campaign buttons from a variety of US elections and political pursuits are displayed in a collage
      Religion and Public Policy
      Exploring how religion and cultural factors interact with public policy issues.
      Read More
      A worn path stretches between rows of olive trees
      Science and Technology Policy
      Addressing a broad range of policy issues that affect scientists and their research.
      Read More
      A scientist picks up test tubes from a rack.
      Space Policy
      Focusing on U.S. space policy and the future of space travel.
      Read More
      The International Space Station (ISS) orbits the Earth at sunrise
  • Events
    The front of Baker Hall, from across the plaza, with fountain in foreground
    Center for the U.S. and Mexico
    Thu, Feb. 23, 2023 | 5 pm - 7:30 pm
    Immigration Reform and the Impact on Children: A Town Hall Discussion See Details
    Tile mosaic over an entrance to Baker Hall that reads "A Bridge Between the World of Ideas and the World of Action"
    Center for the U.S. and Mexico | Edward P. Djerejian Center for the Middle East
    Wed, Mar. 15, 2023 | 5:30 pm - 7:30 pm
    Charting Paths Forward on Immigration Reform See Details
  • Experts
    • Biomedical Research
    • Child Health
    • China
    • Conflict Resolution in the Middle East
    • Domestic Health Policy
    • Drug Policy
    • Energy
    • Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth
    • Global Health
    • Health and Biosciences
    • Human Rights and Refugees
    • International Economics
    • Islam and Politics
    • Latin American Energy
    • Middle East
    • Political Economy of the Arab Gulf
    • Presidential Elections
    • Public Finance
    • Religion and Public Policy
    • Science and Technology
    • Space Policy
    • Texas Politics
    • U.S. and Iran
    • U.S. and Mexico
    • See All Experts
    • Experts in the News
  • Support
    • Join the Roundtable
      Join the Baker Roundtable
      Learn more about the Baker Institute’s membership forum, which supports the mission of the institute and offers members exclusive access to experts and events.
      Read More
      RT
    • Major Gifts
      Major Gifts
      Major gifts provide the funds necessary for the Baker Institute to explore new areas of study and research, and expand current programs.
      Read More
      Wallace S. Wilson meeting with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair
    • Endowments
      Endowments
      Endowment gifts provide the Baker Institute with permanent resources that support research programs, fellows and scholars.
      Read More
      Pictured from left are William Martin, Katharine Neill Harris, Ambassador Edward Djerejian, Alfred C. Glassell, III, and Pam Lindberg
    • Planned Giving
      Planned Giving

      Plan a gift that will ensure lasting, meaningful support for policy programs important to you.

       

      Read More
      meeting
    • Corporate Support
      Corporate Support
      Corporations can become involved with the institute in a number of ways and see the benefit from the research conducted by our fellows and scholars.
      Read More
      Wide shot of the Doré Commons during a Shell Distinguished Lecture Series event featuring Wim Thomas
  • About
    • People
      People
      Learn more about the Baker Institute's leadership and get contact information for the administrative staff.
      Read More
      Secretary James A. Baker, III, stands with a portion of the Berlin Wall, outside of Baker Hall
    • Student Opportunities
      Student Opportunities
      Through the internships on campus and beyond, Rice students can explore careers in public policy, or simply become better informed about important issues of the day.
      Read More
      Amb. Edward P. Djerejian speaks with students outside Baker Hall
    • Annual Report
    • Blog
    • Contact
      Contact Us
      Complete a form for event, media or other inquiries, and get directions and parking information for the Baker Institute.
      Read More
      The front of Baker Hall, from across the plaza, with fountain in foreground
  • Contact
  • Research
    • Economics & Finance
      Economics & Finance
      Read More
    • Energy
      Latest Energy Research
      Summary on Latest Energy Research
      Read More
    • Foreign Policy
      Foreign Policy
      Read More
    • Domestic Policy
      Domestic Policy
      Read More
    • Health & Science
      Health & Science
      Read More
    • All Publications
  • Facebook
  • Youtube
  • Twitter
  • Linkedin
  • Economics & Finance
  • Energy
  • Foreign Policy
  • Domestic Policy
  • Health & Science
  • All Publications
Center for Energy Studies | Research Paper

Price War and Pandemic: The Oil Market Reaction

April 5, 2020 | Mark Finley, Jim Krane, Kenneth B. Medlock III
Numbers and a graph show a crash in the oil market.

Table of Contents

Author(s)

Mark Finley
Fellow in Energy and Global Oil
Jim Krane
Wallace S. Wilson Fellow for Energy Studies
Kenneth B. Medlock III
James A. Baker, III, and Susan G. Baker Fellow in Energy and Resource Economics | Senior Director, Center for Energy Studies

Share this Publication

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Linkedin
  • Download PDF
  • Print This Publication

Tags

Saudi Arabiaoil prices

Introduction

Saudi Arabia’s launch of an oil price war in March 2020 left many observers wondering about the wisdom of exacerbating stress on the global oil market from an enormous demand shock due to the Covid-19 pandemic. But there are several factors that suggest—even if retroactively rationalizing the Saudi move—logical reasons for the Saudi action.

As depicted in Figure 1, Saudi production since July 2016 has been declining, except for a short-lived increase in late 2018. The Saudi decline has been accompanied by a dramatic increase in US shale production over the same period, to the tune of 4.4 million barrels per day (Mb/d). This occurred even as oil prices generally declined since mid-2018, which contributed to thinking within the kingdom that its influential role as the world’s strategic supplier of oil was being undermined by the relentless rise of US shale. One way of reestablishing Saudi primacy is to seek a larger share of the global market by cutting prices and chasing out higher cost production, despite the short-term pain of a price war.

Figure 1 — Crude and Lease Condensate Production in the US, Saudi Arabia, and Russia, and Brent Crude Price (January 2005–March 2020)

This graph shows that the Saudi production decline has been accompanied by a dramatic increase in US shale production over time.
Sources  International Energy Agency, US Energy Information Administration; March 2020 production data are Trading Economics projections.

 

However, the Saudi price war strategy appears to have underestimated the devastating effect of the Covid-19 pandemic on oil consumption. The International Energy Agency and other observers have estimated that 20 Mb/d or more of global consumption could be temporarily lost, due to dramatic reductions of transportation and other sources of oil use.

Against the backdrop of such a massive collapse, Saudi Arabia may not need a price war to achieve its aims. The virus-induced demand shock has already pushed prices below levels at which high-cost production is economically viable. Moreover, the massive oversupply to the market is creating doubts about the ability of inventory capacity to absorb the excess production.1 If, as seems likely, global storage capacity is exhausted, there will be continued downward pressure on price. In short, market effects alone ought to achieve Saudi objectives.

The global liquids supply curve below (Figure 2) illustrates the depth and severity of the Covid-19 demand shock. Before the Covid-19 virus struck, the global liquids supply curve indicated full cost recovery market equilibrium in the range of $50-$65/b, depending on the level of consumption, which fluctuated monthly around the annual average (as indicated) throughout the year. If Saudi Arabia and Russia boost output as promised (an additional 3 million to 3.5 million b/d), that supply would reflect levels in line with a competitive, inframarginal producer. From Figure 2, we can infer that such an increase in supply from low-cost producers would drive a new long-run market equilibrium in the $40-$45/b window, although prices would likely dip lower in the short term as higher-cost supply is chased out.

But that’s not the whole story. The dramatic, unexpected collapse in oil consumption has placed the market in a very different short-run situation. The extreme oversupply to the market will drive price down to a point that still indicates market clearing, but under very different circumstances. Specifically, the demand level at which the market clears reflects consumption plus net injections to inventories. In a “normal” year, net injections roughly balance to meet seasonal demand fluctuations. However, with so much surplus oil being produced, it’s going into inventories. If storage fills, prices would need to fall even more to shut-in production.

Of course, there are regional constraints that will exert pressures on local prices and production, but Figure 2 is meant to reference the global benchmark equilibrium rather than regional prices. In any case, the market clearing equilibrium will reflect short-run production costs and the ability of storage to soak up excess supply. If consumption remains very low, storage will fill. Lack of storage generates a different source of pressure, leading to further price collapses until firms shut-in production so that the market balances.

Figure 2 — Global Liquids Market Equilibrium in the Presence of an Extreme Demand Shock

This graph shows the depth and severity of the COVID-19 demand shock on the global liquids market.
Sources  Rystad, IEA, Joint Organisations Data Initiative, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and author calculations.

 

The magnitude of production shut-ins depends on how far consumption falls relative to contemporaneous production and how rapidly storage fills. Regardless, the combined effects of these simultaneous stresses—Covid-19 demand destruction and increased output from Saudi Arabia and Russia—place immense pressure on storage capacity and the global oil market.

Punishment Strategy: The Price War

Why launch a price war? A price war does not appear to have been the agreed-upon strategy of Riyadh and Moscow going into the March OPEC+ meeting. At the time, the full extent of demand destruction from Covid-19 had not been realized. Regardless, energy ministers from Saudi Arabia and Russia said that the two countries would stop abiding by OPEC+ production quotas when they expired April 1. Both promised additional increases in production, with Saudi Arabia vowing to bring all its spare production capacity online to reach a production record of 12.3 million b/d. If followed through as announced, the Saudi and Russian increases would add over 3 million b/d of low-cost oil to global supply.

Normally, Saudi Arabia, the world’s dominant oil exporter and de facto leader of the OPEC cartel, uses its spare capacity to reduce volatility in oil markets and protect the global economy from a volatile, cyclical industry.2 Maintaining spare capacity also allows Riyadh to achieve the more self-serving goal of protecting long-run demand for oil and maintaining oil’s price advantage over alternate fuels and technologies. In March, however, Saudi officials vowed to deploy spare capacity not to ease volatility but to exacerbate it. In other words, to launch a price war.

How does a price war work, in theory? In a simple game theory construct, a dominant producer like Saudi Arabia has the ability to extract monopoly rents from residual demand (or demand not met at a particular price by all other producers) due to it being a low-cost producer. This strategy implies that withholding production (i.e., maintaining “spare capacity”) is optimal for the dominant producer. Withholding production results in a higher price than would be realized if the dominant firm were acting as a competitive, inframarginal player.

In the case of Saudi Arabia, if the kingdom’s oil strategists feel that a production cut would yield excessive rewards to competitors, they can order an increase in production as a deterrent. The increase is meant to demonstrate the kingdom has a credible tool of punishment for either low-cost producers who do not join the kingdom in making proportionate sacrifices, or high-cost producers who take advantage by ramping up output.

As mentioned above, US shale production, with costs triple or quadruple those of Saudi Arabia or Russia, has benefitted greatly from the kingdom’s constraints on oil production. The same punishment strategy might be used to discipline countries that cooperate inconsistently in the cartel’s production management. In today’s context, think Russia.

The Saudis have previously launched price wars many times, most recently in 2014, when OPEC members refused to cut production amid declining prices and rising US shale output. The most devastating price war took place in 1986, as punishment for rampant OPEC quota cheating and a realization that Saudi cuts were encouraging high-cost production in the US and North Sea.

A price war is a periodic and necessary part of dominant producer strategy as it re-exerts the promise of a credible threat to other low-cost producers as well as to higher cost competitive (or “fringe”) producers. The end goal is that the sacrifice in short-term revenues for the dominant player eventually begets a long-term advantage through an increase in market share without undermining prices because alternative supplies are discouraged by the threat—and occasional reality—of price wars.

However, as “fringe” supply becomes more elastic—as shale has done—it becomes more responsive to changes in market price. This pushes the dominant firm to increase production in a bid to capture increased market share, albeit at a lower price and higher sustained level of production. Hence, if the low-cost producers of the world begin to behave more competitively, the short-run punishment strategy leads to a lower long-term price.

Opportunism and Overreach

Launching a price war typically entails some level of strategic advance planning along with a triggering mechanism. Evidence around the current price war, however, suggests it is based on an opportunistic Saudi reaction to OPEC’s inability to secure sufficient production cuts in the OPEC+ meeting in Vienna in early March.

Heading into last month’s OPEC+ meetings, the market context was not generally understood to be as bleak as we now see it. Although analysts factored in some impact on global demand from Covid-19, a rough consensus found only a modest loss of the roughly 1 Mb/d of worldwide oil demand growth in 2020 that had been forecast before the onset of the virus.3 Based on that consensus, Saudi Arabia had been advocating for a collective production cut of 1.5 Mb/d, on top of the existing cuts of about 1.7 Mb/d that had already been put in place over the previous two years.

Had that scenario been accurate, the Saudis’ suggested cuts would have been sufficient to maintain the oil market balance in 2020, even with expected strong growth in production outside of OPEC. In an effort to promote the cuts, press reports indicated that the Saudis were willing to accept a disproportionately large reduction in their own production.4

Figure 3 — Global Oil Market Analysis Available for the March OPEC+ Meetings

This table shows the global oil market analysis for the March OPEC+ meetings.
Sources  IEA Oil Market Report, February 13, 2020; OPEC Mothly Oil Market Report, February 12, 2020; EIA Short Term Energy Outlook, February 11, 2020.

 

However, Russia had long signaled its reluctance to cut further. As the Covid-19 impact on global demand began to emerge, Russia used the emerging uncertainty to advocate for maintaining the existing production cuts until the OPEC+ countries had more clarity on the 2020 oil market. (Russian officials pointed to concerns about growing US oil market share and the fact that Russian individuals and firms were being targeted by US sanctions.)

When Saudi efforts to coordinate a joint position with Russia failed, the kingdom pushed through an agreement among OPEC members to cut production along the lines of their original proposal, leaving Russia with a “take it or leave it” option. Russia walked away, with its energy minister, Alexander Novak, saying that the existing production cutting agreement would not be renewed, but rather allowed to expire April 1.

It was then that Saudi Arabia responded with an abrupt about-face, announcing the record production levels of 12.3 million b/d that began in April. Riyadh said it would maintain that level in the coming months. Further, the Saudi oil minister ordered Saudi Aramco to raise its maximum sustainable production capacity from 12 million to 13 million barrels a day, earmarking $30 billion in capital investment to do so.5 At the same time, other OPEC+ producers began adding supply to the market as well, most notably Russia and the UAE.6

However, alarm over Covid-19’s spread began to ignite ever more drastic action in afflicted countries, including the United States, the world’s largest oil consumer. As country after country ordered its citizens to shelter in place, an unprecedentedly large swath of global transportation was idled. The virus’ effect on oil demand was thus dramatically stronger than that forecast in early projections.

Estimates of the impact are continuing to move rapidly, with the head of one of the major oil trading houses saying in early April that global oil demand may have been reduced by one-third, or 35 million b/d.7 Average yearly losses for the world as a whole depend on the severity and duration of the crisis. Most analysts now believe that global demand is likely to see the biggest annual decline ever, surpassing the decline of 2.6 Mb/d seen in 1980.8

From this perspective, Riyadh’s launching of a price war looks like a major overstep. Adding large volumes of supply amid a collapse in demand pushed down the oil price to $20 by March 30, the lowest level since 2002. Both the US and global benchmarks (WTI and Brent) have fallen by two-thirds since the beginning of the year. While prices later rebounded on speculation that OPEC+ members and other producers including the US may intervene to reduce supply, the discussion above makes clear that prices could fall further as storage fills, leaving oil with no place to go and forcing producers to shut-in wells.

The U.S. Response

As oil prices collapsed, President Donald Trump’s initial reaction was to applaud the prospect of lower prices at the pump. But as the impact on the domestic oil sector became apparent, the tone in Washington shifted, spurring an array of policy proposals that demonstrate the desperation in the US industry and among political representatives of oil-producing states. The proposals also pointed up the policymaking confusion in the United States around its simultaneous positions as the world’s No. 1 oil consumer and producer. Should policy favor consumer interests by encouraging low prices? Or should it cater to producer interests by fighting low prices?

Trump announced on March 13 a plan to support domestic producers by purchasing 77 million barrels of US crude oil to fill the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve. However, the Energy Department’s solicitation of offers for an initial purchase of 30 million barrels was withdrawn because it was not funded in Congress’ stimulus legislation. The administration also said it was considering policies such as low-interest loans and additional tax incentives to support domestic producers, but these measures were also left out of the stimulus.

On March 20, Texas Railroad Commissioner Ryan Sitton announced he had discussed constraints on Texas oil production with OPEC’s Secretary General Mohammed Barkindo, and said that the RRC retained legal authority to enforce production cuts in Texas. Such an action would essentially render Texas a de facto member of OPEC+, and could run contrary to the Sherman Antitrust Act, at least in spirit.9 Sitton’s comments divided the industry, attracting support from firms such as Pioneer Natural Resources and Parsley Energy, along with opposition from a group of major US producers, along with RRC chairman Wayne Christian and the American Petroleum Institute, the main industry lobby.10

On March 23, US Secretary of Energy Dan Brouillette acknowledged that his agency was in talks with Saudi Arabia, and was considering, among many other options, whether it might join the kingdom in a US-Saudi oil alliance.11 A similar alliance was mentioned in a letter to the administration from US senators of oil-producing states, who argued that Saudi Arabia should leave OPEC, a proposal that would probably cause the cartel to fail.12 It is unclear whether the envisioned alliance would encourage collusion between Washington and Riyadh over production levels or prices; again, such practices would be hard to square with the Sherman Act. Other suggestions being proffered around Washington include using US sanctions or tariffs to punish Saudi Arabia (and Russia) for “dumping” crude oil onto the global market.13 On March 26, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo appealed to Saudi Arabia—the current president of the G20—to “rise to the occasion” and call off its price war. Pompeo, a key proponent of the Trump administration’s “America First” strategy—which rejects magnanimous policy actions not explicitly in the national interest—was essentially pleading with Saudi Arabia to make the sort of sacrifice that would run contrary to Trump administration doctrine.14 The subsequent G20 statement made no mention of the oil market.15

Finally, Trump tweeted on April 2 that he had spoken with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and that the Saudi leader had spoken with Russian President Vladimir Putin and agreed to cut oil production. Although both Saudi and Russian officials denied an agreement had been reached, OPEC did announce its intention to hold a virtual meeting with OPEC+ partners and other interested countries in early April.

What’s Next?

The collapse in oil prices is forcing the world’s producers to slash spending, halt drilling, and shed workers. The US administration and the G7 countries as a group have criticized the OPEC+ price war as adding unnecessary volatility when the global economy is already reeling under the Covid-19 pandemic.

The pain extends even to Saudi Arabia, where higher production will not offset the revenue lost by the price collapse. The kingdom has begun to cut government spending and has raised its debt ceiling significantly. Funds needed to drive the ambitious reforms contained in the Vision 2030 and National Transformation Plan were being pinched. If the Saudi leadership is focused on maintaining sufficient revenues in the next year or two to fund its reforms, a return to a managed market would seem to be the revenue-maximizing approach.

The future path of the oil market will depend in great deal on both the strategic calculus of the Saudi leadership and the practical matters of funding government budgets as well as long-term national transformation.

Conclusion

Amid one of the sharpest oil price declines ever seen, the United States finds itself in a new position and unsure how to react. In the past, it was easy: as a large importer, lower prices were good for the US economy. With the US now the world’s largest producer and consumer, the country’s political leaders have struggled to devise policies that balance the needs of both producers as well as consumers. The raft of contradictory and unfamiliar proposals emerging in the wake of the price crash demonstrates that policymaking consensus about the American role in oil markets and, indeed, what constitutes appropriate governance and guidance of the US oil industry, were yet to be decided. But understanding both the strategic and tactical considerations of its long-time ally Saudi Arabia will be a key factor for the success of US policy.

Endnotes

1. See, for example, John Kemp, “Global oil storage to fill rapidly as consumption plunges,” Reuters, March 27, 2020, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-oil-prices-kemp-column/column-global-oil-storage-to-fill-rapidly-as-consumption-plunges-kemp-idUSKBN21E2BR.

2. Axel Pierru, James L. Smith, and Tamim Zamrik, “OPEC’s Impact on Oil Price Volatility: The Role of Spare Capacity,” The Energy Journal 39, no. 2 (2018).

3. At the time, most analysts were expecting a deep impact on Chinese oil demand in the first quarter of 2020, a modest impact elsewhere, and a relatively swift recovery during the second half of the year. For example, the IEA’s February Oil Market Report (the current edition at the time of the OPEC+ meeting) projected a small decline in global oil demand in the first quarter, but recovery thereafter.

4. The Saudi proposal was for total OPEC+ cuts of 1.5 Mb/d, of which OPEC would take 1 Mb/d, and within OPEC, the kingdom would accept a cut of 400,000 b/d. Heading into the meeting, Saudi Arabia already had been producing well below its target level in an apparent effort to support prices. Estimated production in February (based on a contemporaneous survey of industry analysts conducted by S&P Global) was 9.69 Mb/d vs. the kingdom’s allocation of 10.14 Mb/d.

5. Verity Ratcliffe, Anthony Di Paola, and Matthew Martin, “Saudi Arabia Pledges to Expand Oil Output Capacity,” Bloomberg News, March 11, 2020, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-11/aramco-will-boost-oil-output-capacity-to-13-million-barrels-day.

6. Russian officials initially said that they planned to add 300,000 b/d of production in a short period, but later backed away from that plan.

7. See Grant Smith, Javier Blas, and Olga Tanas, “Trump Meets U.S. Oil Leaders After OPEC+ Urges Cuts to Stem Rout,” Bloomberg, April 3, 2020, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-03/opec-to-hold-virtual-meeting-monday-as-trump-pushes-for-cut.

8. BP Statistical Review of World Energy, 2019 edition.

9. Corporate Finance Institute, “Sherman Antitrust Act,” https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/finance/sherman-antitrust-act/.

10. The Railroad Commission was to discuss the proposal on April 14, 2020. See, for example, Amy Harder, “Texas oil regulators poised to debate historic production controls,” Axios, https://www.axios.com/texas-oil-regulators-production-controls-1e75b92c-71fa-435b-b9ae- 3569a7f4d80a.html.

11. Stephen Cunningham, “U.S.-Saudi Oil Accord One Idea Discussed, Energy Secretary Says,” Bloomberg, March 23, 2020, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-23/u-s-saudi-oil-accord-one-idea-discussed-energy-secretary-says.

12. US Senators Lisa Murkowski et al. to US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, March 25, 2020, letter, Congress of the United States, https://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=files.serve&File_id=36C4A67D-7C57-49B2-BEF2-4EB95E441B99.

13. “Domestic Energy Producers Alliance Asks Commerce Secretary to ‘step up’,” news release, March 19, 2020, https://depausa.org/domestic-energy-producers-alliance-asks-commerce-secretary-to-step-up/.

14. “Pompeo urges Riyadh to 'stabilise energy markets',” Middle East Eye, March 25, 2020, https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/pompeo-urges-riyadh-stabilise-energy-markets-call-mbs.

15. “Extraordinary G20 Leaders' Summit: Statement on COVID-19,” via G20 Information Centre, University of Toronto, March 26, 2020, http://www.g20.utoronto.ca/2020/2020-g20-statement-0326.html.

 

 

This material may be quoted or reproduced without prior permission, provided appropriate credit is given to the author and Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. The views expressed herein are those of the individual author(s), and do not necessarily represent the views of Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.

© 2020 Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy
https://doi.org/10.25613/d772-t130
  • Print This Publication
  • Share
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Email
    • Linkedin

Related Research

Hydrogen
Center for Energy Studies | Working Paper

Developing a Robust Hydrogen Market in Texas

Read More
ME Map
Edward P. Djerejian Center for the Middle East | Center for Energy Studies | Policy Brief

Building Water and Energy Security in the GCC through an Integrated Policy Approach

Read More
Gas+Stove
Center for Energy Studies | Commentary

Why Gas Stoves Matter to the Climate — and the Gas Industry: Keeping Them Means Homes Will Use Gas for Heating Too

Read More
  • Facebook
  • Youtube
  • Twitter
  • Linkedin
  • Donate Now
  • Media Inquiries
  • Membership
  • About the Institute
  • Rice.edu
Contact Us

6100 Main Street
Baker Hall MS-40, Suite 120
Houston, TX 77005

Email: bipp@rice.edu
Phone: 713-348-4683
Fax: 713-348-5993

Baker Institute Newsletter

The email newsletter of Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy provides a snapshot of institute news, research and upcoming events.

Sign Up

  • © Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy
  • Web Accessibility
  • Privacy Policy