US oil reserves drop towards Reagan-era lows, 'significant impact at the pump' coming, experts warn ⁠72%

By Kristen Altus⁠94%

6/10/2026, 10:35:07 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Negativity Bias, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Pessimism Bias as the most egregious example at 29.4% saturation with 161 hits. Analysis detected 1,175 faulty-reasoning hits from 548 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 64.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠72% (6,240 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 71.50% of the article peer group.

The U.S. 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) is dropping toward Biden-era lows toward levels not seen since the Reagan administration. 
According to the latest data from the U.S. 
Energy Information Administration’s petroleum status report for the week ending June 5, the SPR fell to 349.2 million barrels, with nearly 9 million barrels per week being tapped. 
The last time reserves approached this level was under the Biden administration in July 2023, when there were 346.7 million barrels in the SPR. 
If the reserve continues to decline, U.S. emergency crude oil inventories could hit a multi-decade floor not seen since August 1983. 
Energy market experts are warning against the depletion as the Trump administration draws heavily on domestic reserves to counter the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz during the war in Iran. 
TRUMP OFFICIAL REVEALS WHERE CALIFORNIA GETS MUCH OF ITS OIL — AND CALLS IT A NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT 
"This should be very concerning to every American consumer," American Petroleum Institute President and CEO Mike Sommers said in an interview on CNN. 
"Because as those inventories go down and production isn't increased, you're going to start seeing a significant impact at the pump." 
"That's going to happen over time," Sommers cautioned, "but again, it's because of American production that we haven't seen those same price surges that you've seen in other parts of the world." 
"It’s a pretty monumental number to hear multi-decade lows reached," GasBuddy head of analysis Patrick De Haan told Fortune. 
"The longer this goes on, the fewer tools the administration has in dealing with it and the more risk there is to a slingshot for costs." 
Under Biden-era leadership, the SPR declined by 243 million barrels to address pandemic-era supply chain disruptions and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, according to a Fortune report. 
Over the last several months, the Trump administration has authorized an overall release of 172 million barrels as a result of the active conflict with Iran. 
Energy prices rose 3.9% in May amid disruptions to Middle Eastern oil supplies, with prices up 23.5% in the last year. 
The Bureau of Labor Statistics noted that the energy index accounted for more than 60% of the overall consumer price index (CPI) increase in May. 
Gasoline prices increased 7% on a monthly basis in May and are up 40.5% compared with a year ago. 
"We're raising alarm bells right now. 
We're at about 350 million barrels left in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. 
You have to have about 20% of that left for it to be operational, for our system to operate, so we're getting to levels where we're starting to be concerned," Sommers said. 
GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE 
"The only thing that we can do in the short term to fix this problem is to get the Strait [of Hormuz] open as quickly as possible," Sommers said. 
Under Secretary of Energy Kyle Haustveit told FOX Business’ Edward Lawrence on Wednesday: "We're borrowing the barrels for a near-term supply challenge, but in return, the folks that receive those barrels are bringing more barrels back. 
On average, we're seeing over 25% premium." 
READ MORE FROM FOX BUSINESS 
FOX Business' Eric Revell contributed to this report. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.9%Kristen Altus: 7.7%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Confirmation Bias11.9%This article: 9.7%Kristen Altus: 3.9%FoxBusiness: 3.4%Anchoring Bias9.7%This article: 6.6%Kristen Altus: 6.1%FoxBusiness: 4.1%Availability Heuristic6.6%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 1.5%FoxBusiness: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 0.8%FoxBusiness: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 5.1%FoxBusiness: 3.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.0%Kristen Altus: 17.1%FoxBusiness: 12.9%Framing Effect6.0%This article: 3.8%Kristen Altus: 2.2%FoxBusiness: 1.5%Loss Aversion3.8%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 1.4%FoxBusiness: 1.1%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 0.3%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.6%Kristen Altus: 12.6%FoxBusiness: 8.8%Optimism Bias6.6%This article: 29.4%Kristen Altus: 2.9%FoxBusiness: 2.0%Pessimism Bias29.4%This article: 23.7%Kristen Altus: 9.3%FoxBusiness: 7.9%Negativity Bias23.7%This article: 5.8%Kristen Altus: 6.4%FoxBusiness: 4.5%Self-Serving Bias5.8%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 1.1%FoxBusiness: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 0.3%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 2.9%FoxBusiness: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 1.1%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 4.2%FoxBusiness: 3.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 0.3%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 10.4%Kristen Altus: 2.4%FoxBusiness: 2.3%Recency Bias10.4%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 0.4%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 0.3%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 1.0%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 1.1%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.7%Kristen Altus: 8.1%FoxBusiness: 7.2%Appeal to Authority7.7%This article: 9.1%Kristen Altus: 2.9%FoxBusiness: 1.6%False Dilemma9.1%This article: 8.6%Kristen Altus: 2.2%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Slippery Slope8.6%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 12.3%FoxBusiness: 6.3%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 0.8%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 2.3%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 11.3%Kristen Altus: 8.3%FoxBusiness: 6.1%Appeal to Emotion11.3%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 2.0%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 18.2%Kristen Altus: 5.5%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)18.2%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 0.3%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.3%Kristen Altus: 0.7%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Burden of Proof5.3%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 0.3%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 0.6%FoxBusiness: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 5.9%FoxBusiness: 2.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 24.3%Kristen Altus: 2.4%FoxBusiness: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)24.3%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 0.7%FoxBusiness: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 0.5%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.6%Kristen Altus: 1.9%FoxBusiness: 1.8%Unattributed Quote6.6%This article: 4.2%Kristen Altus: 1.4%FoxBusiness: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection4.2%This article: 2.7%Kristen Altus: 6.0%FoxBusiness: 4.1%Biased Writer Voice2.7%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 1.5%FoxBusiness: 1.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 4.4%FoxBusiness: 2.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.6%Kristen Altus: 4.1%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.6%

548 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers55%attributed speech244writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageEnergy Information Administration • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageMike Sommers • 23 words • 100.0% coverageMike Sommers • 21 words • 0.0% coverageMike Sommers • 32 words • 0.0% coveragePatrick De Haan • 19 words • 0.0% coveragePatrick De Haan • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageBureau of Labor Statistics • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageMike Sommers • 6 words • 0.0% coverageMike Sommers • 12 words • 0.0% coverageMike Sommers • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageMike Sommers • 29 words • 0.0% coverageKyle Haustveit • 36 words • 100.0% coverageKyle Haustveit • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageEric Revell • 8 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Patrick De Haan

100%flagged-word coverage
45 attributed words15% of attributed speech85% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Biased Writer Voice-6.1 ptsWriter: 6.1%Patrick De Haan: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -5.7 ptsWriter: 5.7%Patrick De Haan: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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