ZeroHedge69%

"We've Burned Through All Buffers": Oil Traders Warn Market Running On Fumes 73%

By Tyler Durden61%

7/18/2026, 10:05:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Pessimism Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Recency Bias as the most egregious example at 21.7% saturation with 181 hits. Analysis detected 1,856 faulty-reasoning hits from 833 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 65.7% and a BS Rank of 73% (5,562 of 20,517 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 72.90% of the article peer group.

Brent crude futures jumped a little more than 4% to nearly $88 a barrel, putting the crude oil benchmark on track for its biggest weekly gain since April. 
That move followed an Axios report that said the Trump administration had notified Israel it was deploying additional aerial assets to the region, signaling the US military could expand strikes on Iran as soon as this weekend. 
Financial Times spoke with energy traders at the end of the week who warned that slowing tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz could trigger a more severe supply crunch than the first round of the US-Iran war because emergency reserves and stockpiles around the world that cushioned the earlier disruption have been mostly depleted. 
"We've burned through all of the buffers we had. 
Everything," said one trader. 
"All of that's now gone. 
Related: 
* *Cushing Remains At 'Tank Bottoms'* 
Bloomberg noted: 
*Fuel markets strengthened again*, with the ICE gasoil crack closing at the highest on record and the Nymex heating oil crack the strongest since March. 
More narrow Brent put spreads around the low $70s traded in sizable numbers. 
Earlier today, the International Energy Agency revealed that member countries released three-quarters of the planned 400 million-barrel emergency reserves announced in March. 
Amrita Sen, founder of Energy Aspects, pointed out that heading into the US-Iran war, the global oil market had around 400 million barrels of excess inventories, not including strategic reserves controlled by governments. 
"Now we have close to nothing ... and market complacency around Hormuz flows is being severely tested," Sen warned. 
Strait crossings hit three week low 
Strait of Hormuz traffic continued to weaken on 16 July, with confirmed crossings falling to eight, the lowest level in three weeks. 
Seven of the eight transits used the Iranian route, highlighting a growing concentration of movements through… pic.twitter.com/YEA63ZGkVJ 
 Kpler (@Kpler) July 17, 2026 
UBS analyst Henri Patricot wrote in the daily "Hormuz tracker" note that further Hormuz escalation has occurred, Gulf tanker crossings remain limited, and there is a sharp pullback in Gulf loadings: 
Further escalation 
The conflict in the Middle East is escalating further as Iran reportedly targeted power plants and desalinisation plants in Kuwait. 
Previous strikes had focused on US military targets. 
These followed US strikes on bridges and an airport in Iran. 
Limited Gulf tanker crossings 
Increased attacks continue to weigh heavily on flows via Hormuz. 
The latest UBS Evidence Lab data (> Access Dataset) show that oil and gas tanker crossings fell to one, with only one product tanker entering the Gulf (Figure 1). 
July-to-date crossings have averaged 10, down from the mid-to-high teens recorded in late June and early July, and remain well below the c.50 level seen in February. 
Oil on water in the Gulf is ticking up again, up ~5Mb in recent days (Figure 10). 
The absence of outbound oil and gas flows takes the July average down to 5.4Mboe/d, compared with 3.7Mboe/d in June and 1.3Mboe/d in May (Figure 4). 
Capacity entering the Gulf fell to 0.7Mboe/d and has averaged 5.2Mboe/d month to date (Figure 5). 
Meanwhile, flows via the Bab al Mandeb Strait have not been disrupted so far and increased further to 9.7Mb/d yesterday, above the July-to-date average of 6.7Mb/d. 
A sharp pullback in Gulf loading 
Gulf crude loadings ex-Iran fell sharply to 1.0Mb/d yesterday from 6.0Mb/d on Wednesday, with the past-week average at 3.2Mb/d vs 5.1Mb/d in July and 3.4Mb/d in June. 
Iranian loadings rose to 5.0Mb/d yesterday, lifting the July average to 1.5Mb/d, still below the typical 1.7-1.8Mb/d range, but above June's 0.8Mb/d (Figure 9). 
Crude loadings at ports outside the Strait (Yanbu in Saudi Arabia and Fujairah in the UAE) eased following a sharp rebound, falling to 3.6Mb/d yesterday below the July-to-date average of 5.9Mb/d and June's 6.9Mb/d. 
Yanbu declined to 2.7Mb/d, below the month-to-date level of 4.2Mb/d and June's 4.8Mb/d. 
Product loadings inside the Gulf remain close to May-June levels (Figure 15). 
The normalization pathway of tanker flows appears to have been disrupted as the US and Iran become locked in an escalation spiral, with neither side willing to back down. 
Any sustained reopening of the Strait of Hormuz has now been postponed. 
With or without Tehran's cooperation, US-allied Gulf countries are in the beginning innings of what we've described as a "great energy rewiring" to bypass the Hormuz chokepoint. 
Latest: 
* *Great Rewiring: US Supports Iraq-Syria Oil Pipeline To Erode Tehran's Hormuz Leverage* 
* *Dubai's New East Coast Port Signals The Beginning Of End For Iran's Hormuz Leverage* 
* *"Zero Hormuz Dependency": UAE Races To Rewire Energy Flows, Bypassing Chokepoint Chaos* 
* *Hormuz Bypasses Maxed Out: Saudi East-West Pipeline Hits Record 7 MMb/d, As UAE Fujairah Crude Loadings Reach Capacity* 
"Ultimately, the market was pricing an optimistic flow trajectory that now is clearly not on the table, at least . . . not until we get another round of diplomacy," Natixis Bank analyst Joel Hancock wrote in a note. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.7%Tyler Durden: 7.4%ZeroHedge: 7.5%Confirmation Bias4.7%This article: 3.1%Tyler Durden: 1.7%ZeroHedge: 1.7%Anchoring Bias3.1%This article: 15.7%Tyler Durden: 4.5%ZeroHedge: 4.5%Availability Heuristic15.7%This article: 4.0%Tyler Durden: 1.1%ZeroHedge: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic4.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 1.3%ZeroHedge: 1.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 5.2%Tyler Durden: 2.9%ZeroHedge: 2.9%Overconfidence Bias5.2%This article: 4.8%Tyler Durden: 10.7%ZeroHedge: 10.7%Framing Effect4.8%This article: 1.7%Tyler Durden: 0.4%ZeroHedge: 0.4%Loss Aversion1.7%This article: 7.8%Tyler Durden: 0.5%ZeroHedge: 0.5%Status Quo Bias7.8%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.1%ZeroHedge: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 7.7%Tyler Durden: 2.0%ZeroHedge: 2.0%Optimism Bias7.7%This article: 21.4%Tyler Durden: 3.8%ZeroHedge: 3.8%Pessimism Bias21.4%This article: 13.8%Tyler Durden: 11.4%ZeroHedge: 11.4%Negativity Bias13.8%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 1.4%ZeroHedge: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Tyler Durden: 1.1%ZeroHedge: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error3.5%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.1%ZeroHedge: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 1.2%ZeroHedge: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.9%ZeroHedge: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.8%ZeroHedge: 0.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.1%ZeroHedge: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.0%ZeroHedge: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 21.7%Tyler Durden: 3.3%ZeroHedge: 3.4%Recency Bias21.7%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.5%ZeroHedge: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.1%ZeroHedge: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 1.3%ZeroHedge: 1.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.4%ZeroHedge: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 19.6%Tyler Durden: 6.5%ZeroHedge: 6.5%Appeal to Authority19.6%This article: 3.2%Tyler Durden: 2.1%ZeroHedge: 2.2%False Dilemma3.2%This article: 10.1%Tyler Durden: 2.3%ZeroHedge: 2.3%Slippery Slope10.1%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.3%ZeroHedge: 0.4%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.4%Tyler Durden: 6.4%ZeroHedge: 6.5%Hasty Generalization8.4%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.4%ZeroHedge: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.7%ZeroHedge: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 3.0%Tyler Durden: 5.1%ZeroHedge: 5.1%Appeal to Emotion3.0%This article: 6.1%Tyler Durden: 1.5%ZeroHedge: 1.5%Begging the Question6.1%This article: 12.5%Tyler Durden: 5.5%ZeroHedge: 5.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.5%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.3%ZeroHedge: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.7%ZeroHedge: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.1%ZeroHedge: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.4%ZeroHedge: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.5%Tyler Durden: 2.1%ZeroHedge: 2.1%Anecdotal0.5%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.1%ZeroHedge: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 21.5%Tyler Durden: 2.8%ZeroHedge: 2.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)21.5%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.0%ZeroHedge: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.9%Tyler Durden: 0.1%ZeroHedge: 0.1%Middle Ground2.9%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.1%ZeroHedge: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.2%ZeroHedge: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.2%ZeroHedge: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 12.4%Tyler Durden: 4.2%ZeroHedge: 4.2%Unattributed Quote12.4%This article: 1.4%Tyler Durden: 2.0%ZeroHedge: 2.0%Quote-first Misdirection1.4%This article: 4.7%Tyler Durden: 10.7%ZeroHedge: 10.7%Biased Writer Voice4.7%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 1.3%ZeroHedge: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.4%ZeroHedge: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 2.6%ZeroHedge: 2.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.6%Tyler Durden: 0.9%ZeroHedge: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.6%

833 words analyzed.

Speakers

9speakers38%attributed speech518writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageAxios • 37 words • 0.0% coverageFinancial Times • 55 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageBloomberg • 2 words • 0.0% coverageBloomberg • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageInternational Energy Agency • 22 words • 0.0% coverageAmrita Sen • 33 words • 0.0% coverageAmrita Sen • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageKpler • 17 words • 0.0% coverageKpler • 6 words • 0.0% coverageHenri Patricot • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageUBS Evidence Lab • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageJoel Hancock • 39 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Joel Hancock

100%flagged-word coverage
39 attributed words12% of attributed speech79% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+98.3 ptsWriter: 1.7%Joel Hancock: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-7.5 ptsWriter: 7.5%Joel Hancock: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -2.5 ptsWriter: 2.5%Joel Hancock: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-2.3 ptsWriter: 2.3%Joel Hancock: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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