Reopening Strait of Hormuz Would Ease Oil Crisis but Only So Much ⁠22%

By Rebecca F. Elliott⁠0%

4/18/2026, 9:44:21 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Pessimism Bias, Optimism Bias, and Negativity Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 24.6% saturation with 175 hits. Analysis detected 1,294 faulty-reasoning hits from 710 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 35.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠22% (17,250 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 78.80% of the article peer group.

Shipping companies are facing confusion and uncertainty about the status of the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow passageway through which a significant share of the world’s energy flows, as they assess mixed messages from officials in Iran and the United States. 
But even if the strait opens fully — on Saturday, Iran’s military said it would reimpose “strict” control over traffic — it will take weeks for substantial amounts of Persian Gulf oil and gas to reach buyers around the world. 
And it will be much longer before companies repair the damage that has been inflicted on one of the world’s most important energy-producing regions. 
It is likely to be a long time before a gallon of gasoline costs less than $3 a gallon, as it did before the United States and Israel attacked Iran on Feb. 
28. 
Shortages of certain products like jet fuel and natural gas may also persist in some countries for weeks or longer. 
“We don’t expect oil prices — and therefore pump prices — to go back to prewar levels,” said Arjun Murti, a partner at Veriten, an energy research and investment firm based in Houston. 
Think of the Strait of Hormuz, which sits between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula, as a valve. 
It must be open for energy to flow. 
But whether shipping companies reposition tankers and producers turn wells back on will depend heavily on whether they believe that the détente between Iran and the United States and Israel is durable. 
Spencer Dale, who until recently served as the chief economist of the London-based oil company BP, said that producers who have been forced to turn off their oil and gas wells will be reluctant to restart them “until people have confidence that you have a lasting agreement.” 
Traders were hopeful on Friday, when the most commonly cited international price of oil, Brent futures, fell 9 percent to about $90 a barrel, the lowest settlement price since the second week of the war. 
But for those who needed an actual tanker full of oil, the price on Friday was higher: almost $99 a barrel, according to Argus Media. 
That second price, often called the spot price, more closely reflects what companies, such as refiners, pay for commodities — and therefore how much energy will cost the economy as a whole. 
“Normally this distinction between the two markets is something for oil geeks and traders to worry about,” said Mr. 
Dale, now a visiting professor at the London School of Economics and Political Science. 
“It really matters right now.” 
One of the biggest variables for oil prices will be whether shipping companies — and their insurers — believe that the strait is safe. 
The status of the waterway remained murky on Saturday after Iran’s military said that the strait would remain “under strict control,” a day after the country’s foreign minister said that the strait was “completely open.” 
President Trump framed the foreign minister’s Friday announcement as a breakthrough but, complicating matters, he said that the United States would maintain its blockade on ships headed to or from Iranian ports. 
That has effectively prevented Iran from exporting energy in recent days. 
Ships had not returned to the strait in great numbers as of Friday afternoon. 
Should shipping from Iran’s neighbors restart, a first order of business will be for the tankers full of energy that have been stuck in the Persian Gulf to leave for countries in Asia and Europe that depend heavily on the region. 
Empty vessels would also have an opportunity to pick up fuel from storage tanks, making space for newly extracted oil and natural gas. 
All of that would give the global economy an infusion of energy that it badly needed. 
But the war has inflicted the kind of damage that takes months, if not years, to repair. 
Not only have producers turned off an estimated 10 percent of global oil supply, but more than 80 energy facilities in the region have been damaged, many of them severely, according to the International Energy Agency. 
Restoring output to prewar levels could take up to two years, Fatih Birol, the agency’s executive director, said this week. 
Peter Eavis contributed reporting. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.6%Rebecca F. Elliott: 3.2%The New York Times: 1.7%Confirmation Bias4.6%This article: 0.0%Rebecca F. Elliott: 2.4%The New York Times: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.8%Rebecca F. Elliott: 1.6%The New York Times: 2.1%Availability Heuristic5.8%This article: 4.5%Rebecca F. Elliott: 0.7%The New York Times: 0.6%Representativeness Heuristic4.5%This article: 4.5%Rebecca F. Elliott: 0.7%The New York Times: 0.6%Hindsight Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%Rebecca F. Elliott: 0.7%The New York Times: 2.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 12.1%Rebecca F. Elliott: 7.5%The New York Times: 5.8%Framing Effect12.1%This article: 5.1%Rebecca F. Elliott: 0.8%The New York Times: 0.6%Loss Aversion5.1%This article: 0.0%Rebecca F. Elliott: 0.4%The New York Times: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca F. Elliott: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 13.7%Rebecca F. Elliott: 9.5%The New York Times: 2.7%Optimism Bias13.7%This article: 15.9%Rebecca F. Elliott: 13.6%The New York Times: 3.5%Pessimism Bias15.9%This article: 13.4%Rebecca F. Elliott: 7.3%The New York Times: 9.4%Negativity Bias13.4%This article: 0.0%Rebecca F. Elliott: 0.0%The New York Times: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 7.9%Rebecca F. Elliott: 1.3%The New York Times: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error7.9%This article: 4.5%Rebecca F. Elliott: 0.7%The New York Times: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias4.5%This article: 2.7%Rebecca F. Elliott: 0.4%The New York Times: 1.1%In-Group Bias2.7%This article: 0.0%Rebecca F. Elliott: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.0%Rebecca F. Elliott: 0.3%The New York Times: 0.9%Halo Effect2.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca F. Elliott: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca F. Elliott: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.6%Rebecca F. Elliott: 2.7%The New York Times: 1.1%Recency Bias5.6%This article: 0.0%Rebecca F. Elliott: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca F. Elliott: 0.3%The New York Times: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca F. Elliott: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca F. Elliott: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 24.6%Rebecca F. Elliott: 8.9%The New York Times: 4.0%Appeal to Authority24.6%This article: 1.1%Rebecca F. Elliott: 0.9%The New York Times: 1.2%False Dilemma1.1%This article: 5.8%Rebecca F. Elliott: 0.9%The New York Times: 0.8%Slippery Slope5.8%This article: 0.0%Rebecca F. Elliott: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.3%Rebecca F. Elliott: 1.2%The New York Times: 2.7%Hasty Generalization7.3%This article: 0.0%Rebecca F. Elliott: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca F. Elliott: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 2.7%Rebecca F. Elliott: 1.2%The New York Times: 3.4%Appeal to Emotion2.7%This article: 4.6%Rebecca F. Elliott: 1.5%The New York Times: 0.4%Begging the Question4.6%This article: 1.5%Rebecca F. Elliott: 1.8%The New York Times: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)1.5%This article: 0.0%Rebecca F. Elliott: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca F. Elliott: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca F. Elliott: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 6.8%Rebecca F. Elliott: 1.1%The New York Times: 0.2%Composition/Division6.8%This article: 3.4%Rebecca F. Elliott: 0.5%The New York Times: 1.0%Anecdotal3.4%This article: 0.0%Rebecca F. Elliott: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.0%Rebecca F. Elliott: 3.5%The New York Times: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca F. Elliott: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca F. Elliott: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca F. Elliott: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca F. Elliott: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca F. Elliott: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.7%Rebecca F. Elliott: 1.7%The New York Times: 2.1%Unattributed Quote2.7%This article: 7.3%Rebecca F. Elliott: 1.2%The New York Times: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection7.3%This article: 1.7%Rebecca F. Elliott: 1.9%The New York Times: 3.8%Biased Writer Voice1.7%This article: 2.4%Rebecca F. Elliott: 0.4%The New York Times: 0.5%Indoctrination2.4%This article: 0.0%Rebecca F. Elliott: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca F. Elliott: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca F. Elliott: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

710 words analyzed.

Speakers

7speakers40%attributed speech423writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageIran’s military • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageArjun Murti • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Dale • 47 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageArgus Media • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageSpencer Dale • 14 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Dale • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageIran’s military • 35 words • 0.0% coveragePresident Trump • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageInternational Energy Agency • 36 words • 0.0% coverageFatih Birol • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Arjun Murti

100%flagged-word coverage
33 attributed words11% of attributed speech90% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+95.5 ptsWriter: 4.5%Arjun Murti: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-4.5 ptsWriter: 4.5%Arjun Murti: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-4.0 ptsWriter: 4.0%Arjun Murti: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-2.8 ptsWriter: 2.8%Arjun Murti: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.