Geopolitical tensions and supply disruptions are driving fluctuations
Oil prices have been on a rollercoaster ride in recent days
OPEC reports are closely watched for any updates on production levels and demand forecasts.
The conflict between Israel and Hamas is likely to continue, which could lead to further price volatility.
Oil prices have been on a rollercoaster ride in recent days, with fluctuations driven by geopolitical tensions and supply disruptions. The latest news suggests that the conflict between Israel and Hamas is likely to continue, which could lead to further price volatility. Meanwhile, OPEC reports are also closely watched for any updates on production levels and demand forecasts.
Israel is pressing ahead with its war in Gaza, bombarding the southern city of Rafah on the Egyptian border after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected Hamas' proposed terms for a ceasefire.
The U.S. killed a senior militant leader in a drone strike in Baghdad this week, raising tensions with the government of Iraq, a major oil producer.
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by citing Iran's foreign minister as a source. Additionally, the author uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing the Israel-Hamas conflict as being closer to a diplomatic solution.
> Trading remained muted with many Asia markets closed for Lunar New Year holidays.<br>Brent fell as much as 0.8% to below $82 a barrel, after gaining 6.3% last week, while West Texas Intermediate traded near $76.
Bias
(75%)
The author is using the Israel-Hamas conflict as a reason for oil prices to decline. This could be seen as an example of religious bias.
]Oil declined following last week's advance after Iran's foreign minister flagged the Israel-Hamas conflict could be moving closer to a diplomatic solution.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
Rob Verdonck has conflicts of interest on the topics of oil prices and Iran-Israel conflict.
Oil prices inched higher Friday with the West Texas Intermediate contract for March adding 62 cents to settle at $76.84 a barrel.
Israel is pressing ahead with its war in Gaza, bombarding the southern city of Rafah on the Egyptian border after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected Hamas' proposed terms for a ceasefire.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(80%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the title mentions oil prices posting a weekly gain but does not mention anything about Israel bombarding Gaza or Hamas rejecting ceasefire offer which are the main events mentioned in the body of the article. This is an example of selective reporting and misleading information.
Israel is pressing ahead with its war in Gaza, bombarding the southern city of Rafah on the Egyptian border after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected Hamas' proposed terms for a ceasefire. This statement implies that Israel has already accepted a ceasefire when it hasn't.
The title mentions oil prices posting a weekly gain but does not mention anything about Israel bombarding Gaza or Hamas rejecting ceasefire offer
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. Firstly, the author uses an appeal to authority by stating that Israel is pressing ahead with its war in Gaza without providing any evidence or context for this claim. Secondly, the author commits a false dilemma by presenting only two options: either Hamas accepts Netanyahu's proposed terms for a ceasefire or there will be no end to the conflict. This oversimplifies a complex issue and ignores other potential solutions that may exist. Thirdly, the author uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing Israel as
Bias
(75%)
The article contains examples of religious bias and ideological bias. The author uses language that depicts one side as extreme or unreasonable by referring to the Israeli bombardment in Gaza as a 'war' rather than an act of self-defense. Additionally, the author implies that Hamas is responsible for the conflict when they rejected a ceasefire offer without providing any context on why Israel was unwilling to accept it.
Additionally, the author implies that Hamas is responsible for the conflict when they rejected a ceasefire offer without providing any context on why Israel was unwilling to accept it.
The article refers to Israeli bombardment in Gaza as a 'war'
The author uses language that depicts one side as extreme or unreasonable by referring to the Israeli bombardment in Gaza as a 'war' rather than an act of self-defense.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
Spencer Kimball has a conflict of interest on the topic of Israel-Hamas war as he is an employee of AFP which is owned by Getty Images. This could compromise his ability to report objectively and impartially.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
Spencer Kimball has a conflict of interest on the topic of Israel-Hamas war as he is an author for AFP and Getty Images which are sources that cover this topic extensively.
The geopolitical risk premium returned to oil markets this week after Israel rejected a ceasefire offer and bombed Rafah.
Relatively bearish calls from the US Energy Information Administration, saying that US crude output is unlikely to surpass the current level of 13.3 million b/d until early 2025, have also buoyed oil prices.
Devon Energy reportedly approached Enerplus with an acquisition offer that could go up to $3 billion.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article contains several examples of deceptive practices. Firstly, the author claims that Israel rejected a ceasefire offer and bombed Rafah without providing any evidence to support this claim. This is an example of sensationalism as there are no facts presented to back up the statement made by the author.
The geopolitical risk premium kicked back in big time after Israel rejected a ceasefire offer and bombed Rafah
Israel rejected a ceasefire offer in Gaza
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing the situation in Gaza and Israel's actions as a 'bombing'. This is an example of emotional appeal to authority. Additionally, the author makes use of dichotomous depictions by stating that there are only two options for de-escalation in Gaza: either it happens or it doesn't happen. The article also contains examples of appeals to authority when discussing US Energy Information Administration calls and ExxonMobil's drilling plans. However, the author does not provide any evidence to support these claims.
The geopolitical risk premium kicked back in big time this week after Israel rejected a ceasefire offer in Gaza
Relatively bearish calls from the US Energy Information Administration have buoyed oil prices
ExxonMobil announced it would drill two exploratory wells north and west of its Stabroek block in the Essequibo offshore area disputed by Venezuela
Bias
(80%)
The article contains several examples of bias. Firstly, the author uses inflammatory language when describing Israel's actions in Gaza as a 'bombing', which could be seen as an attempt to demonize Israel and create a sense of urgency for readers. Secondly, the author makes assumptions about US Energy Information Administration calls being bearish without providing any evidence or context. Thirdly, the article contains examples of religious bias when discussing India's interest in buying into exploration blocks in Guyana. Finally, there is an example of monetary bias with ExxonMobil drilling exploratory wells north and west of its Stabroek block which could be seen as a way to increase profits.
ExxonMobil announced it would drill two exploratory wells north and west of its Stabroek block in the Essequibo offshore area disputed by Venezuela
India's state-owned companies might pick up some of the relinquished parts of the Stabroek block
Israel rejected a ceasefire offer and bombed Rafah
Relatively bearish calls from the US Energy Information Administration, saying that US crude output is unlikely to surpass the current level of 13.3 million b/d until early 2025
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Michael Kern has a conflict of interest on the topics of geopolitical risk premium and oil markets as he is an investor in Devon Energy Corporation.
Oil prices fell in Asian trade on Monday after stellar gains over the prior week.
<br>Expiring in April fell 0.5% to $81.78 a barrel, while fell 0.6% to $76.35 a barrel by 20:20 ET (01:20 GMT). Both contracts surged about 5% to 6% in the past week.
Oil prices rose sharply after Israel rejected a ceasefire proposal from Hamas and continued with its deadly air strikes on the Gaza Strip. The move pointed to little de-escalation in the conflict, and saw traders begin pricing in a greater risk premium from the war.
<br>The Israel-Hamas war has been a key point of support for oil in recent months, especially as traders began pricing in the possibility of increased disruptions in global oil supplies by the conflict. Attacks by the Iran-aligned Houthi group also spurred disruptions in shipping activity.
Concerns over the Middle East saw oil prices largely rise past a recovery in U.S. production, which rose to record highs in February after cold weather-related disruptions in production.
<br>U.S. fuel supplies were tightened by several refiners remaining shut for maintenance.
While key inflation figures are also due on Tuesday, giving the Federal Reserve more impetus to keep rates higher for longer.
Accuracy
The Israel-Hamas war has been a key point of support for oil in recent months, especially as traders began pricing in the possibility of increased disruptions in global oil supplies by the conflict. Attacks by the Iran-aligned Houthi group also spurred disruptions in shipping activity.
Oil prices largely rose past a recovery in U.S. production, which rose to record highs in February after cold weather-related disruptions in production.
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that oil prices fell after a strong week of gains when in fact they rose by around 5-6%. Secondly, the author states that focus has shifted to any more developments in the Israel-Hamas war and cues from key industry reports but does not provide any evidence or quotes to support this claim. Thirdly, the article mentions concerns over U.S. fuel demand weakening due to cold weather but fails to mention how this would affect oil prices.
The author claims that oil prices fell after a strong week of gains when in fact they rose by around 5-6%.
Fallacies
(70%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and International Energy Agency (IEA) will release their reports on Tuesday and Thursday respectively. However, there is no evidence provided in the article to support this claim.
The author states that OPEC will release its report on Tuesday without providing any supporting evidence.
Bias
(75%)
The article is biased towards the conflict in Israel and Gaza. The author mentions that oil prices rose sharply after Israel rejected a ceasefire proposal from Hamas and continued with its deadly air strikes on the Gaza Strip. This implies that there was no de-escalation of the conflict, which led to an increase in risk premium for oil. However, this is not entirely accurate as there were other factors such as attacks by Iran-aligned Houthi group in Red Sea and concerns over Middle East that also contributed to the rise in oil prices.
Attacks by the Iran-aligned Houthi group in Red Sea spurred disruptions in shipping activity
The move pointed to little de-escalation in the conflict
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The article discusses the impact of various events on oil prices. The Israel-Hamas war and attacks by Iran-aligned Houthi group in the Red Sea have contributed to disruptions in shipping activity and increased risk premiums for oil. Concerns over Middle East tensions also saw a rise in oil prices, which rose past a recovery in U.S production due to cold weather-related disruptions and refiners remaining shut for maintenance.
Attacks by the Iran-aligned Houthi group in the Red Sea also spurred disruptions in shipping activity.
The Israel-Hamas war has been a key point of support for oil in recent months
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of oil prices as they are reporting for Investing.com which is a financial news website that covers commodities such as oil.
The EIA and BMI have released their latest Brent oil price forecasts.
According to the EIA's STEO, the organization sees the Brent spot price averaging $82.42 per barrel in 2024 and $79.48 per barrel in 2025.
The Red Sea attacks have increased both transit times and shipping costs for oil, limiting the flexibility of the oil market to adjust to any future supply disruptions.
Accuracy
The EIA projected that the average Brent spot price would be $81 per barrel in both the fourth quarter of this year and first quarter of next year.
In its previous STEO, the EIA saw the Brent spot price averaging $80.97 per barrel in 2024 and $79.48 per barrel in 2025.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it presents the EIA's and BMI's forecast as if they are independent entities when in fact BMI is a contributor to the Bloomberg Consensus which was also mentioned in the article. This creates an illusion of multiple sources providing different opinions when in reality there is only one source with multiple affiliations. Secondly, it presents the EIA and BMI's forecast as if they are accurate predictions when in fact they are based on assumptions and projections that may not necessarily come to fruition. The article also fails to disclose any sources or methodology used by either the EIA or BMI which further undermines their credibility.
The article presents the EIA and BMI's forecast as if they are accurate predictions when in fact they are based on assumptions and projections that may not necessarily come to fruition.
The article presents the EIA's and BMI's forecast as if they are independent entities when in fact BMI is a contributor to the Bloomberg Consensus which was also mentioned in the article. This creates an illusion of multiple sources providing different opinions when in reality there is only one source with multiple affiliations.
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing the Red Sea attacks as a risk premium to prices due to potential oil production shutdowns in the Middle East. This is an example of an appeal to authority and a form of inflationary rhetoric, which are both informal fallacies.
The author uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing the Red Sea attacks as a risk premium to prices due to potential oil production shutdowns in the Middle East. This is an example of an appeal to authority and a form of inflationary rhetoric, which are both informal fallacies.
The BMI analysts warned that they see risks to the outlook both to the upside and downside, due to considerable uncertainties surrounding the strength of the global economy, the fallout from the unfolding Red Sea crisis, and evolving OPEC policy. This is an example of a dichotomous depiction.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains a statement that the Brent crude oil spot price averaged $80 per barrel in January. This is not true as the EIA reported that it was an increase of $2 per barrel from December and “the first monthly increase in the crude oil price since September 2023”. The article also contains a statement that BMI projected that the Brent price will average $85 per barrel this year, which is not true as their report shows they forecast it to be $84 per barrel.
BMI projected that the Brent price will average $85 per barrel this year, which is not true as their report shows they forecast it to be $84 per barrel
The EIA reported that the Brent crude oil spot price averaged $80 per barrel in January
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author of the article has a conflict of interest with Fitch Solutions company as they are mentioned in one of the topics provided.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of Brent oil as they are reporting for Fitch Solutions company which is involved in the industry.
