A country under live missile fire from a fellow cartel member, choosing to leave a sixty-year institutional arrangement, tells something about the cartel’s structural health, and far more about a new energy geography taking hold.
On 28 April, the United Arab Emirates announced its withdrawal from the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and the wider OPEC+ alliance, beginning 1 May. The state framed the decision as the UAE’s “long-term strategic and economic vision and evolving energy profile” and successfully guarded the internal nature of the deliberation.
Energy Minister Suhail Al Mazrouei said the UAE had raised the topic with zero other countries. “This is a policy decision,” Al Mazrouei said.
Airlines Braced for Rationing
The backdrop to Abu Dhabi’s announcement outshone all preceding diplomatic manoeuvring. The Strait of Hormuz, through which around 20% of the world’s seaborne crude oil and liquefied natural gas normally transits, had operated under a wartime double-blockade since February.
International Energy Agency chief Fatih Birol declared on 23 April that the situation was “the biggest energy security threat in history,” adding that Europe receives about 75% of its aviation kerosene from Middle Eastern refineries, “and this is basically now [down to] zero.”
Lufthansa subsequently cancelled 20,000 short-haul flights through October to save roughly 40,000 tonnes of aviation kerosene, a conservation effort that successfully shadowed the €500 million daily toll estimated by European Union Energy Commissioner Dan Jørgensen.
On 28 April, the World Bank forecast a 24% energy price surge across 2026, flagging elevated risks of stagflation for import-vulnerable economies in Europe and Asia.
Abu Dhabi Chose Production Over Cartel Loyalty
Abu Dhabi’s production rationale predated the crisis by years. The UAE has pursued an ambition to produce 5 million barrels per day by 2027, a target the cartel’s quota structure had made increasingly hard to reach.
In March, the UAE pumped around 2.37 million bpd against a sustainable capacity the IEA estimated at 4.3 million bpd. Al Mazrouei offered a brisk assessment: “Our exit at this time is the right time for it, because it will have a minimum impact on the price and it will have a minimum impact on our friends at OPEC and OPEC+.”
Freedom from production ceilings primarily dictated Abu Dhabi’s step, with geopolitical rupture providing an ancillary backdrop. A state absorbing Iranian drone and missile strikes over previous weeks, with its export routes choked by the Hormuz closure, had every practical reason to exercise sovereign control over its production capacity.
The Hormuz closure provided cover; markets were already disrupted, so a further supply announcement would be received with minimum turbulence.
Qatar’s Departure Set an Earlier Precedent
The UAE’s departure dwarfs earlier exits in scale; the institutional reasoning traces a familiar arc.
Qatar withdrew from OPEC in 2019, reorienting its energy identity around liquefied natural gas, in which Doha held roughly 30% of global market share.
Qatar’s energy minister Saad al-Kaabi captured the cartel’s structural weakness at the time: “For me to put efforts and resources and time in an organisation that we are a very small player in and I don’t have a say in what happens… practically it does not work, so for us it’s better to focus on our big growth potential.”
Doha contributed under 2% of OPEC’s total output at departure; the UAE, as the cartel’s third-largest producer, made up roughly 12%. Angola exited in 2024 over quota frustrations; Ecuador had departed before.
Each exit eroded the cartel’s collective authority incrementally. Andy Lipow, president of Lipow Oil Associates, observed: “While the UAE has left OPEC, they were not the first and may not be the last.”
GCC Summit Exposed Solidarity’s Limits
On the day Abu Dhabi filed its withdrawal notice, the Gulf Co-operation Council convened an emergency summit in Jeddah, producing a communiqué speaking to the co-ordination gap Abu Dhabi’s exit had made apparent.
All six Gulf heads of state attended; the UAE sent Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed, whose presence quietly noted the absence of Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed.
Gulf states called for the “accelerated” completion of a joint missile warning system, a direct response to the hundreds of drones and missiles Iran had directed at civilian and energy infrastructure across the Gulf, with the UAE absorbing the heaviest toll.
Dr Anwar Gargash, diplomatic adviser to Sheikh Mohamed, had spoken candidly the evening before: “We cannot allow anyone outside the Gulf region to dictate our security priorities. These missiles will not be aimed at them tomorrow, they will be aimed at us.”
A UAE official later described the summit as “a first good step in the right direction,” adding “there is still much to be done against a precarious backdrop.”
Saudi Arabia’s silence on Abu Dhabi’s OPEC withdrawal pointed to the institutional rupture: Riyadh chairs a cartel from which its third-largest contributor had departed with twenty-four hours’ notice and zero prior consultation.
Trump’s Endorsement Rewrites Washington’s Calculus
Washington’s endorsement lent further dimension to the week’s energy reconfiguration. Donald Trump declared on 29 April his strong support for Abu Dhabi’s exit from OPEC, predicting the decision would bring energy prices down.
Trump had long viewed OPEC as an instrument which converged with Russian revenue streams financing the war in Ukraine. A UAE producing at full capacity outside the cartel’s quota framework serves American interests in lower prices, and Trump’s endorsement confirmed that Washington welcomes Abu Dhabi’s commercial autonomy.
The endorsement carries consequences reaching well past the bilateral level. The IEA had already released 400 million barrels from emergency stockpiles in previous weeks, and Birol portrayed even the response as mere pain relief, with a full resolution remaining elusive: “This is only helping to reduce the pain, it will not be a cure,” Birol said.
The Cartel’s Consensus Has Run Its Course
Across global capitals, the Iran war’s energy shock rewrote how governments discuss supply security. States with strong renewable and nuclear power bases, including Spain and Albania, outpaced the resilience of import-vulnerable Germany and Italy, a divergence encompassing the energy decade ahead.
Europe, a continent sourcing an outsized share of its energy imports from a region now in open conflict absorbs the full price of structural dependency. Iraq and Kuwait carry production capacity well above current quotas and domestic fiscal pressure to deploy it.
If the producer acts independently over the coming months, the cartel’s co-ordinating function virtually ends. Lipow warned that “countries that are tired of seeing their fellow OPEC and OPEC+ members consistently cheat on their quotas are candidates to leave these groups.”
Abu Dhabi’s departure stands as a natural consequence, with any sense of rupture fading into the background: a producer whose capacity, security interests, and commercial trajectory had progressed decisively past what the cartel’s quota architecture could accommodate.
The new energy age beginning on 1 May adopts the character of a dispersed market of sovereign producers, leaving the co-ordinated cartel summits of the 1970s as a memory. OPEC may retain the name; the institution retains fewer of its original functions with each departure.
Keep up with Daily Euro Times for more updates
Read also:
Saudi Eyes Up Nuclear, A Delicate Balancing Act
The North Sea Trades Big Oil for Giant Wind Farm
Aramco Says the Oil Market is Running Out of Room
