In my opinion the correct answer is e. I'll explain why i think so.
The idea in a nutshell: the flood makes it more costly to produce a given amount of oranges. Suppose that the market price fell. When prices go down people buy more, but the suppliers can't supply more oranges than before for less money, because their costs have gone up. So there's more demand than supply, and no equilibrium obtains.
Now let's see it formally. As lior_p wrote, the demand equation is Qd=-200*p+20000. Before the flood the supply equation is Qs1=f(p); after the flood, it is Qs2=g(p) (where f and g are some supply functions). The flood does not directly affect the demand (why should it?), so the demand equation remains the same throughout both periods.
Before the flood the equilibrium price is p', where -200*p'+20000=12000 (i.e. p'=40). We have -200*p'+20000=Qs1(p').
After the flood production costs are higher, i.e. it costs more to produce a given yield, i.e. for a given price less yield is produced, i.e. Qs2(p)<Qs1(p) for every p. The demand equation does not change, so equilibrium obtains at price p'', where -200*p''+20000=Qs2(p'').
Subtract the second equation from the first to get -200(p'-p'')=Qs1(p')-Qs2(p'') or equivalently p'-p''=200*(Qs2(p'')-Qs1(p')). Now suppose, by way of contradiction, that p''<=p', i.e. 0<=p'-p''. Then 0<=200*(Qs2(p'')-Qs1(p')) or equivalently 0<=Qs2(p'')-Qs1(p'), i.e. Qs1(p')<=Qs2(p''). Since Qs2(p'')<Qs1(p'') we get Qs1(p')<Qs1(p''). But since p''<=p', Qs1(p'')<=Qs1(p') (this is true for every supply function). A contradiction! So p'<p'', i.e. the price of oranges rises after the flood, regardless of the size of the crop failure.