How did The New York Times and Reuters quantify gasoline and crude oil prices across December 2025?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Reuters quantified December 2025 crude and gasoline market moves primarily by reporting traded futures settlement prices for Brent and U.S. West Texas Intermediate (WTI), percent changes session-to-session and week-to-week, and linking those price moves to U.S. inventory data, OPEC+ output decisions and analyst commentary [1] [2] [3]. The New York Times’ approach cannot be described from the material provided because no NYT reporting was supplied; this analysis therefore contrasts Reuters’ visible methods with the missing NYT evidence and notes what would be needed to compare methodologies.
1. Reuters relied on futures settlements and daily percent moves as the numeric backbone
Across December Reuters anchored its price reporting to benchmark futures settlements — quoting Brent and WTI closing levels and the dollar or percent changes — for example noting Brent settled at $61.12 and other sessions at roughly $60–$64 per barrel and giving both absolute and percentage moves [1] [2] [3]. Those settlement figures are the concrete numbers Reuters published to quantify crude-price direction and magnitude during December [1] [2].
2. Inventories and polls were used to explain price direction, not as the primary price metric
Reuters repeatedly tied price moves to inventory reports — citing U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) weekly data and American Petroleum Institute (API) estimates — and to the scale and direction of crude and product stock changes (e.g., a 1.3 million-barrel crude draw for the week to Dec. 12 and gasoline/distillate builds) as factors that supported or undercut price moves [4] [5]. Reuters also referenced preliminary Reuters polls of analysts for expectations on stock changes and OPEC+ output adjustments, using these polls to frame why settlement prices behaved as they did [6] [7].
3. Reporter attribution and analyst color filled the causal narrative around prices
Beyond raw prices and inventory statistics, Reuters quantified market sentiment by quoting market analysts and research houses to attribute cause: comments about oversupply, potential Russia‑Ukraine peace implications, U.S. actions affecting Venezuelan flows, and anticipated Fed rate moves were all used to explain price percent changes and weekly trends [1] [2] [5] [3]. Reuters therefore quantified not only price levels but also probabilistic drivers — for example citing Fed-cut expectations as supporting gains and OPEC forecasts of matching 2026 supply to demand as pressure on prices [2] [8].
4. Gasoline was discussed via inventory changes and product-specfic moves rather than a single retail average
In December Reuters did not primarily report an “average retail gasoline” price metric; instead it described gasoline market conditions through inventory changes and how those product builds or draws influenced crude benchmarks and distillate balances [4] [5]. When gasoline or distillate inventories rose more than expected, Reuters used that statistic to help explain downward pressure on oil benchmarks [4].
5. Cross-checks and market data sources Reuters used
Reuters’ coverage combined benchmark futures settlements with inventories from the EIA and API, Reuters analyst polls and published research from commodity houses (e.g., J.P. Morgan, Kpler) to triangulate market direction — citing specific inventory draws and surpluses, China’s storage flows and OPEC+ output decisions as quantifiable inputs to price moves [4] [9] [7] [3]. Third‑party market-data pages such as TradingEconomics were present in the dataset and show intraday contract moves — e.g., crude at $56.90 on Dec. 17 — that align with the futures‑price focus Reuters used [10].
6. What cannot be concluded about The New York Times from supplied reporting
No New York Times articles or data were included in the provided material, so it is not possible from these sources to state how the New York Times quantified December 2025 gasoline or crude prices, whether it emphasized retail pump averages, futures settlements, regional wholesale racks, or different inventory series. A proper comparison would require NYT pieces or its data feeds for December to see whether the paper favored futures settlement prices, retail averages (AAA), government inventory data, or alternative indicators.
Conclusion: Reuters’ transparent metrics vs. the missing NYT method
The supplied Reuters reporting shows a consistent method: report futures settlement prices (Brent/WTI) and percent moves, then explain those moves with EIA/API inventory tallies, Reuters polls and analyst/research-house commentary [1] [4] [2] [9]. Without New York Times material, any claim about how the NYT quantified prices would be unsupported; obtaining NYT articles or data for December 2025 is required to complete a side‑by‑side methodological comparison.