Skip to main content
  • Sections
  • Search

Center for Strategic & International Studies

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Sign In

Topics

  • Climate Change
  • Cybersecurity and Technology
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Governance
    • Intellectual Property
    • Intelligence, Surveillance, and Privacy
    • Military Technology
    • Space
    • Technology and Innovation
  • Defense and Security
    • Counterterrorism and Homeland Security
    • Defense Budget
    • Defense Industry, Acquisition, and Innovation
    • Defense Strategy and Capabilities
    • Geopolitics and International Security
    • Long-Term Futures
    • Missile Defense
    • Space
    • Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation
  • Economics
    • Asian Economics
    • Global Economic Governance
    • Trade and International Business
  • Energy and Sustainability
    • Energy, Climate Change, and Environmental Impacts
    • Energy and Geopolitics
    • Energy Innovation
    • Energy Markets, Trends, and Outlooks
  • Global Health
    • Family Planning, Maternal and Child Health, and Immunizations
    • Multilateral Institutions
    • Health and Security
    • Infectious Disease
  • Human Rights
    • Building Sustainable and Inclusive Democracy
    • Business and Human Rights
    • Responding to Egregious Human Rights Abuses
    • Civil Society
    • Transitional Justice
    • Human Security
  • International Development
    • Food and Agriculture
    • Governance and Rule of Law
    • Humanitarian Assistance
    • Human Mobility
    • Private Sector Development
    • U.S. Development Policy

Regions

  • Africa
    • North Africa
    • Sub-Saharan Africa
  • Americas
    • Caribbean
    • North America
    • South America
  • Arctic
  • Asia
    • Afghanistan
    • Australia, New Zealand & Pacific
    • China
    • India
    • Japan
    • Korea
    • Pakistan
    • Southeast Asia
  • Europe
    • European Union
    • NATO
    • Post-Soviet Europe
    • Turkey
  • Middle East
    • The Gulf
    • Egypt and the Levant
    • North Africa
  • Russia and Eurasia
    • The South Caucasus
    • Central Asia
    • Post-Soviet Europe
    • Russia

Sections menu

  • Programs
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Analysis
    • Blogs
    • Books
    • Commentary
    • Congressional Testimony
    • Critical Questions
    • Interactive Reports
    • Journals
    • Newsletter
    • Reports
    • Transcript
  • Podcasts
  • iDeas Lab
  • Transcripts
  • Web Projects

Main menu

  • About Us
  • Support CSIS
    • Securing Our Future
Blog Post - Energy Headlines Versus Trendlines
Share
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Printfriendly.com

Which U.S. States Are Most Exposed to Low Oil Prices?

March 12, 2020

By: Nikos Tsafos

As the world’s largest oil and gas producer, the United States will suffer from lower oil prices. Companies will cut investment and lay off staff, hitting the country’s hydrocarbon producing regions. This dynamic is increasingly well understood. Yet not all states will suffer equally. Some have diversified economies, and hence might experience more localized effects; others depend highly on hydrocarbons and will experience severe impacts.

GDP is not everything, of course, but it tells a compelling story about how different states were hit during the last oil price slump. In late 2014, oil prices fell by 60 percent in about six months. They recovered briefly but then fell again to $26 per barrel (West Texas Intermediate) on February 11, 2016. In under two years, oil fell by some 75 percent. How did that decline affect different states?

The graph below shows real, quarterly GDP for the 12 largest oil and gas producing states (based crude oil and gas output in 2019). For reference, it also shows real GDP for the country as a whole and ranks states based on their Q3 2019 GDP relative to 2012. Two dynamics are clear. First, several states were hit hard in 2014-2016. North Dakota’s GDP fell by 14 percent (for context, the Great Depression saw a 26 percent decline in GDP in four years). Alaska’s GDP fell 11 percent. Other states experienced more modest recessions (Louisiana and Oklahoma), and some experienced stagnation (New Mexico, West Virginia, and Wyoming). Only a few were truly spared.
 


Second, the cumulative effects of the 2014-2016 oil price shock varied. California and Colorado have diversified economies, so the 2014-2016 slump is barely visible. Texas was hit but recovered quickly. In Oklahoma, the slump turned the state from an above-average performer to average. In Pennsylvania and Ohio, the hit left a lasting impact, and both states now trail the U.S. total. Other states have seen an ever-widening gap between state and national GDP: New Mexico, North Dakota, West Virginia, Louisiana, Wyoming, and Alaska are struggling to keep up with the rest of the country.

In short, there is no simple national story about how low oil prices will affect different states or localities. If the 2014-2016 oil price decline is any guide, the impact will vary greatly across the country’s hydrocarbon producing states—and so any policy response should be tailored and targeted to those regions most affected by the slump.

Media Queries
Contact H. Andrew Schwartz
Chief Communications Officer
Tel: 202.775.3242

Contact Paige Montfort
Media Relations Coordinator, External Relations
Tel: 202.775.3173
Related
Energy Markets, Trends, and Outlooks, Energy Security and Climate Change Program, Energy and Sustainability

More from this blog

Blog Post
Are Gas Pipelines Really Impossible to Build?
In Energy Headlines Versus Trendlines
July 8, 2020
Blog Post
United States No Longer Reducing Energy-Related Carbon Emissions
In Energy Headlines Versus Trendlines
April 3, 2020
Blog Post
Who is Prepared for an Oil Price War?
In Energy Headlines Versus Trendlines
March 9, 2020
Blog Post
The UAE Nuclear Project Is Nearing Operation, but Will It Usher in a Nuclear Power Boom in the Middle East?
By Jane Nakano
In Energy Headlines Versus Trendlines
February 25, 2020
Blog Post
Emission Peak Could Be as Fickle as the Weather
By Sarah Ladislaw
In Energy Headlines Versus Trendlines
February 14, 2020
Blog Post
The Complex Relationship Between Coal and Gas in Europe
In Energy Headlines Versus Trendlines
February 13, 2020
Blog Post
LNG Needs Depth, Not Just Breadth
In Energy Headlines Versus Trendlines
January 27, 2020
Blog Post
Energy and the U.S.-China Phase One Trade Deal—Don’t Believe the Hype... At Least Not All of It
By Sarah Ladislaw
In Energy Headlines Versus Trendlines
January 17, 2020

Related Content

Commentary
What to Expect from Shale This Year
By Ben Cahill
January 6, 2022
Newsletter
U.S.-Canada Energy Trade: Set for a Rebound
By Ben Cahill
October 21, 2021
Report
Filled to the Brim: The Importance of Flexible and Innovative Storage in Commodities Markets
By William Alan Reinsch
August 14, 2020
Commentary
To Boost Energy Security, Keep It Simple: Add Supply, Cut Demand
By Ben Cahill
July 7, 2022
Commentary
Call Houston and Wall Street for an Emergency Summit
By Ben Cahill
March 7, 2022
Critical Questions
Oil Market Cannot Afford to Lose Russian Supplies
By Ben Cahill
January 31, 2022
Critical Questions
Geopolitics of Oil and Inflation
By William Alan Reinsch
July 26, 2022
Commentary
OPEC Pulls Off a Tough Compromise
By Ben Cahill
December 4, 2020
Footer menu
  • Topics
  • Regions
  • Programs
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Analysis
  • Web Projects
  • Podcasts
  • iDeas Lab
  • Transcripts
  • About Us
  • Support Us
Contact CSIS
Email CSIS
Tel: 202.887.0200
Fax: 202.775.3199
Visit CSIS Headquarters
1616 Rhode Island Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Media Queries
Contact H. Andrew Schwartz
Chief Communications Officer
Tel: 202.775.3242

Contact Paige Montfort
Media Relations Coordinator, External Relations
Tel: 202.775.3173

Daily Updates

Sign up to receive The Evening, a daily brief on the news, events, and people shaping the world of international affairs.

Subscribe to CSIS Newsletters

Follow CSIS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • Instagram

All content © 2022. All rights reserved.

Legal menu
  • Credits
  • Privacy Policy
  • Reprint Permissions