Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Earth News

UAE To Leave OPEC Amid Hormuz Oil Crisis (apnews.com) 122

Posted by BeauHD from the global-energy-shock dept.
fjo3 writes: The United Arab Emirates announced Tuesday that it would exit the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (source paywalled; alternative source), or OPEC, along with the wider group of partners known as OPEC+, effective May 1, in what could be a blow to control over prices by the group, long led in practice by Saudi Arabia. The move "reflects the UAE's long-term strategic and economic vision and evolving energy profile" read an official statement carried by a UAE state news agency, as disruptions "in the Strait of Hormuz continues to affect supply dynamics."

[...] The UAE is the second Persian Gulf country to leave the group after Qatar terminated its membership in 2019. The UAE has been a member of OPEC since 1971. The latest departure leaves in place 11 core members: Algeria, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UAE To Leave OPEC Amid Hormuz Oil Crisis More

UAE To Leave OPEC Amid Hormuz Oil Crisis

Comments Filter:

  • OPEC is really the Saudis (Score:5, Informative)

    by nealric ( 3647765 ) on Tuesday April 28, 2026 @01:07PM (#66116866)

    OPEC has just been a front for the Saudis for a very long time. Only they really have the ability to meaningfully meter output.

    Algeria, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, and Venezuela all basically produce as much as they can regardless of OPEC. Their output is mostly determined by ability to attract investment, security (or lack thereof) and geopolitical obstacles (as in Iran). Kuwait and UAE have the ability to meter, but they are too small in total output to matter. Russia has informally worked with OPEC on quotas, but they have likely lost the ability to meter output now that Ukraine is attacking its export faculties.

    • OPEC has just been a front for the Saudis for a very long time.

      OPEC is a cartel. Cartels often have leaders. Cartels usually fail, loyalty/control eventual fades and self interest asserts itself.

    • Re:OPEC is really the Saudis (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28, 2026 @02:42PM (#66117072)

      OPEC has just been a front for the Saudis for a very long time. Only they really have the ability to meaningfully meter output.

      Algeria, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, and Venezuela all basically produce as much as they can regardless of OPEC. Their output is mostly determined by ability to attract investment, security (or lack thereof) and geopolitical obstacles (as in Iran). Kuwait and UAE have the ability to meter, but they are too small in total output to matter. Russia has informally worked with OPEC on quotas, but they have likely lost the ability to meter output now that Ukraine is attacking its export faculties.

      As soon as prices go up it becomes profitable to extract elsewhere diluting OPEC's market share. The difference between OPEC and other producers is the lag in response to market changes.

    • Re:OPEC is really the Saudis (Score:4, Informative)

      by unixisc ( 2429386 ) on Wednesday April 29, 2026 @01:48AM (#66117760)

      Qatar had left OPEC during its 2019 dispute w/ Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Emirates and Bahrein. Since then, they focused on LNG. Now, w/ the Emirates leaving it, OPEC is even more fractured. Countries that don't like OPEC cartel prices can deal w/ Emirates or Qatar, or even Russia or Iran, if they don't care about US trade relations

      Once the islamic regime in Iran falls, Iranian oil will be back on the world oil markets, lowering their prices. If and when the Ukraine war ends, Russian oil too can return online. At that point, the oil suppliers will be too fragmented, and a new Iran may not be as accommodative of Saudi desires, given their own priorities in economic recovery. Same w/ Russia once their war ends, or in a post Putin regime

      • Once the islamic regime in Iran falls

        Right now the only thing that's certain is that the US Navy is scared of entering the Straight of Hormuz. HTH.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Hopefully the move away from oil as fuel will have gained enough momentum by then that it never recovers.

        It would be cheaper to just do that, than to deal with the inevitable next oil shock.

  • Trump Iran Crisis (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    It already had a name, it's the Trump Iran Crisis. Now people are trying to whitewash it?

    • Re:Trump Iran Crisis (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Baron_Yam ( 643147 ) on Tuesday April 28, 2026 @01:28PM (#66116912)

      It's an impressive accomplishment - nobody liked Iran, though it had allies. This unnecessary war is pissing everyone off enough they're more or less siding with Iran over the US.

      That's the 'respect' Trump has brought to America.

      • We gave Iran the nuke (Score:5, Insightful)

        by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Tuesday April 28, 2026 @01:32PM (#66116926)
        Only it's the strait of Hormuz instead of an actual nuclear weapon. And it's way more effective than any nuclear weapon they could ever get their hands on.

        Iran now has the power to crash the entire world economy. All thanks to the staggering incompetence of one senile old man and a bunch of sycophantic hangers on and a bunch of people who couldn't figure out that making a known rapist and pedophile president wasn't going to end well for them...

        The thing is so far about 40% of the country here in America has been completely insulated from this mess. It won't last but it's looking like it may hold out for them until after the midterms and then they don't matter anymore.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by nightflameauto ( 6607976 )

          Only it's the strait of Hormuz instead of an actual nuclear weapon. And it's way more effective than any nuclear weapon they could ever get their hands on. Iran now has the power to crash the entire world economy. All thanks to the staggering incompetence of one senile old man and a bunch of sycophantic hangers on and a bunch of people who couldn't figure out that making a known rapist and pedophile president wasn't going to end well for them... The thing is so far about 40% of the country here in America has been completely insulated from this mess. It won't last but it's looking like it may hold out for them until after the midterms and then they don't matter anymore.

          Hey, they owned the libs. That's the important thing. They really owned the libs. They also owned themselves, and most of everybody else on the planet, but those lib tears man, they must make a glorious cocktail to make all the other damage worthwhile.

          • So far no consequences (Score:4, Insightful)

            by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Tuesday April 28, 2026 @02:38PM (#66117066)
            Gas prices have gone up a bit but it's nothing they can't absorb. You can see that in Trump's poll numbers. They can keep telling themselves gas will come back down in 2 weeks.

            So you can keep that up until the midterms as long as gas doesn't get so expensive that it prevents them from paying rent or mortgages or buying food. That's the point where they have to abandon dear leader but we're not anywhere close to that yet for those people.

            Owning the libs is part of it. My God they love yelling TDS. But it's also sunk cost fallacy.

            • Gas prices have gone up a bit but it's nothing they can't absorb. You can see that in Trump's poll numbers. They can keep telling themselves gas will come back down in 2 weeks.

              It's the exact opposite. Sure, the MAGA base can ignore gas prices, but the non-MAGA republicans and the right-leaning independents are much more easily swayed by gas prices, and it's this third of voters that produces political tsunamis. Carville continues to be right - it's the economy, stupid. That continues to be true even if a third of voters are intransigent MAGA.

              • No such thing as a "non-MAGA republican" and Carville's incessant cries that there's this mythical bloc of swing voters democrats can appeal to has destroyed the country by causing losing to donald fucking trump *twice*. It's not the economy, it's the perception of the economy... anyone who's not entirely braindead would never vote for the right on the basis of the economy, they're worse for it beyond dispute. Those so woefully uninformed they've never even tried to examine the issue are similarly not votin

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by WaffleMonster ( 969671 )

          Only it's the strait of Hormuz instead of an actual nuclear weapon.

          With some exceptions regional hydrocarbon extractors deliberately decided not to invest in bypassing the Hormuz choke-point. They likely presumed worst case US would intervene to open it by force. Nobody is going to make that mistake again.

          And it's way more effective than any nuclear weapon they could ever get their hands on.

          This nonsense is absurd on its face.

          • How is it absurd? (Score:3, Insightful)

            by rsilvergun ( 571051 )
            How many times have nuclear weapons been used? How sure are you that Russia's nuclear weapons work? How about america's?

            But the fact that Iran can close the straight is a fact. They can do it without freaking out the rest of the world and without the incredible expense of maintaining a large enough nuclear arsenal that nobody decides to chance it and see whether or not those nukes really work.

            Iran could have a couple of actual nuclear missiles but they would have to not only prove that they could h
            • IRGC can menace Hormuz essentially preventing transit outside of their control. IRGC having nukes makes it even more difficult to intervene if conflict arises, say Iraq militia, Hezb, Hamas, etc⦠one view which there r many arguably Trump clumsily opened Pandoraâ(TM)s box with poor alliance coordination and follow through plans but the threat was there and possibly getting harder to contain. Hindsight the blockade could have been first lever for negotiations instead of last but the surprise

          • This nonsense is absurd on its face.

            America has the world's largest arsenal of nuclear weapons and it is effectively powerless against what is going on with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Having a nuclear weapon which you can't use (MAD / political consequence) is useless. It's absurd to think that choking the world economy isn't a far more effective global weapon.

            • America has the world's largest arsenal of nuclear weapons

              No, Russia has the worlds largest nuclear arsenal.

              and it is effectively powerless against what is going on with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

              No, your assertion US is powerless is absurd. The US currently chooses not to commit assets to the Hormuz kill box to unblock it during current "ceasefire". I wouldn't either. Way better ATM to cure Iran's oil curse and let nature take its course. The regime is having trouble paying the foreign proxies currently occupying Iran it imported just a few weeks ago and shit is only getting worse for them.

              Having a nuclear weapon which you can't use (MAD / political consequence) is useless.
              It's absurd to think that choking the world economy isn't a far more effective global weapon.

              Just to be clear you are saying nukes are useless so lit

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Pascoea ( 968200 )

                Just to be clear you are saying nukes are useless so literally anything is more effective than a useless nuke?

                Nukes are a deterrent against other nukes. That's it. We would have to be batshit insane to launch a nuke at Iran. So no, they aren't useless, they just serve a different purpose.

                A handgun would for example be a more effective deterrent than a nuclear weapon?

                Depends. What's the threat? A gun is a great deterrent against someone breaking into your house, or robbing you on the street. A nuke would be decidedly bad for that purpose. If someone is threatening nuclear war with you, I'd prefer to have nukes available.

                Is it your position when people compare the effectiveness of nukes this is simply a rhetorical device given nukes are "useless"?

                Unless we are willing to use them offensively to achieve some objecti

                • Nukes are a deterrent against other nukes. That's it. We would have to be batshit insane to launch a nuke at Iran. So no, they aren't useless, they just serve a different purpose.

                  I'm trying to understand what thegarbz was trying to say. The context here isn't nuking Iran or the US having nukes it is Iran having nukes vs Iran blocking a straight.

                  Unless we are willing to use them offensively to achieve some objective? Yes, they are rhetorical devices. Think about it. We could literally go park a nuclear submarine in the middle of the Strait and say "break the blockade or else". There are two responses: They capitulate, or call our bluff. My bet? They invite us to go flour our nuts. Even Trump isn't stupid enough to start a global nuclear war, and they know it.

                  I wish people would read the thread and if they want to reply reply in context to what is actually being discussed. What is the point of going off on these insane tangents about nuking Iran and parking nuclear submarines?

                  So yes, they are rhetorical devices for this situation.

                  Rhetorical devices have no objective value. If you believe this then the nuke characterizations are just a waste of ever

                  • Re: (Score:3)

                    by Pascoea ( 968200 )

                    The context here isn't nuking Iran or the US having nukes it is Iran having nukes vs Iran blocking a straight.

                    I'm aware. The root of this discussion is around the "And [Iran's ability to shut down the strait at will] is way more effective than any nuclear weapon they could ever get their hands on." comment. You've been up and down this thread with the same theme: That idea is patently ridiculous, a nuke is far more effective than a naval blockade. I disagree with that premise.

                    What is the point of going off on these insane tangents about nuking Iran and parking nuclear submarines?

                    Hyperbole used to illustrate that nuclear weapons aren't the end-all be-all answer you argue they are. We have them, yet for all practical

                    • I'm aware.

                      If you are aware why are you bringing up irrelevant sidecars about nuking Iran and US having nukes when this is not the topic at hand?

                      That idea is patently ridiculous, a nuke is far more effective than a naval blockade. I disagree with that premise.

                      You need to be able to articulate a reason. I gave my reasons chief amongst them is the fact US attacked Iran anyway knowing in advance they would mess with traffic thru the straight. Not only that the US maintained their blockade even after Iran dropped theirs during the ceasefire after a month and a half of straight disruption. So where is the leverage? Do you believe h

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by Pascoea ( 968200 )

                      I say let this land burn.

                      Words words words. It's all bluster. Bravado. Bloviating. I don't think they'd be stupid enough to follow through. That's my opinion, you disagree. Nothing wrong with that.

                      I disagree.

                      Which is the basis for this entire mental masturbation exercise: We fundamentally disagree on Iran's willingness to use their hypothetical nuclear weapons offensively, or as a defense against a conventional attack. I don't think they would. You do. Those are both personal opinions, neither of which are objectively provable.

                      When one finds themselves arguing yes I know what I said is meaningless but it has value it is probably best to stop digging.

                      What? How do y

                    • We fundamentally disagree on Iran's willingness to use their hypothetical nuclear weapons offensively, or as a defense against a conventional attack. I don't think they would. You do. Those are both personal opinions, neither of which are objectively provable.

                      Again this whole line of argument is irrelevant. It simply doesn't matter what Iran was actually willing to do if it had nukes. What mattered was the threat of what it could do to decision makers on the other side of the equation. What is irrefutable is the fact the US acted at least twice knowing full well Iran would respond by blocking transit thru the straight. That threat FAILED to DETER the US from attacking Iran. It also failed to prevent the US from continuing its blockade of Iranian ports.

                      You s

          • And it's way more effective than any nuclear weapon they could ever get their hands on.

            This nonsense is absurd on its face.

            I don't think it's absurd at all. Yes, a nuke would be a deterrent - but if they ever used it they'd be pounded into dust for having done so and they know it. The entire world would be against them. So they'd tolerate a lot of shit before pulling that specific trigger.

            But causing economic havoc with a rather minor military investment, when a large percentage of the world feels that their actions in the Strait of Hormuz are fully justified in the face of the crap that the

            • I don't think it's absurd at all.

              These comparisons of harassing ships in a waterway with nukes are not just absurd they are ridiculous absurd. This is evidenced by the simple fact everyone knew in advance the Iranians would fuck with transit through the straight but the US knowing that waged war against the IRGC anyway. This wouldn't have been the case if Iran had nukes.

              but if they ever used it they'd be pounded into dust for having done so and they know it.

              Like they care or ever even gave a fuck about Iran in the first place.

              "We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let th

              • Considering the Don of the USA knew that they would close the strait, but believed he could make them bend the knee and kiss his pinky before they had time to do that, I wouldn't be so quick to assume he wouldn't do the same thing if Iran had nukes, believing the same thing about them using nukes.

                The Don of the USA does not believe anything can harm him. Not closed straits, not tariffs, not seizing leaders of foreign powers, and not nukes. Iran having nukes would be at best very unlikely to stop him from at

        • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Netanyahu doesn't care. He will throw us under the bus to get his Greater Israel.

          With elections coming up in Israel, this is a dangerous time. Netanyahu needs to stay in power to avoid the consequences of his actions.

      • Re:Trump Iran Crisis (Score:4, Interesting)

        by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Tuesday April 28, 2026 @01:32PM (#66116928)

        If you come across a republican that is supposedly fed up with the current administration ask them this simple question. Given the chance to vote for Trump a third time or a democrat, who would they choose?

        • Re:Trump Iran Crisis (Score:5, Insightful)

          by hierofalcon ( 1233282 ) on Tuesday April 28, 2026 @02:06PM (#66117012)

          I'm a Republican. I haven't voted for Trump or his particular sycophants. Although rare, it is possible to be a member of a political party but still vote for who you feel is going to do the best job in the respective office, regardless of party. If the party doesn't like how I vote, they should get better candidates.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by WaffleMonster ( 969671 )

        It's an impressive accomplishment - nobody liked Iran, though it had allies.

        Iran now has even fewer allies after lobbing missiles and drones at everyone in the region. The UAE was one of Iran's top targets. Now the fucking Israelis are sending Iron dome to UAE.

        • The UAE was never an ally of Iran, so nothing has changed there. Iran sent loitering munitions to attack UAE oil fields a few years back, as an example.

          Israel are becoming more and more mercenary. They sell their tech to those who pay enough.

          • Israel was the instigator of this crisis. It is a theocracy with a veneer of democracy, that has been unable to live peacefully with its neighbours for 3 generations, mostly due to a Chosen People complex as big as the Orthodox population. As an experiment in relocation after WWII, they have been showing the world what not to do.

      • It's an impressive accomplishment - nobody liked Iran, though it had allies. This unnecessary war is pissing everyone off enough they're more or less siding with Iran over the US.

        That's the 'respect' Trump has brought to America.

        Trump said, "I had to take this little excursion and do something that no other president had the courage to do." While those other presidents actually analyzed the situation and had enough good advisors, brains and patience to *not* do this. Iran blockading the Strait of Hormuz was always an option for them, but they had no really good justification to initiate this action unilaterally. Benjamin Netanyahu easily convinced Trump ('cause ego and, probably, dementia) that attacking Iran (for them, while g

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        It's an impressive accomplishment - nobody liked Iran, though it had allies. This unnecessary war is pissing everyone off enough they're more or less siding with Iran over the US.

        That's the 'respect' Trump has brought to America.

        If nobody liked Iran before and somehow can't remember or recall a single reason why they don't, then I have zero sympathy or respect for the idiots who choose to 'side' with Iran now.

        Much like feminists choosing the bear, the only thing left to say to that delusion is good luck with that.

      • I am a US citizen. I am not in favor of Iran over the US, however many of us are 100% in favor of Iran over Trump. Don't conflate Trump with the US. Trump does not now, nor has he ever, cared about the US populace. He managed to con a (too large) segment of the US citizenry into believing he was interested in doing what is right for them, but as they are finding out now, we are all victims of this sociopathic narcissist. Higher prices caused by this are in fact the price we will all have to pay for thing

    • Re:Trump Iran Crisis (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Tuesday April 28, 2026 @01:29PM (#66116916)

      The "liberal" media also uses careful wording. Headlines state the war in Iran instead of the war with Iran as to distance US involvement. This is entirely the US and Israel's doing. The story changes overnight when MAGA says so. Literally from "no new wars" to "we must stop Iran immediately".

      • Headlines state the war in Iran instead of the war with Iran as to distance US involvement.

        That's not necessarily a political statement, it's journalistic standards. War hasn't been declared. Kind of like they call this week's DC shooter the "alleged" or "suspected" shooter. It's not because they think the feds swapped perps in some sort of conspiracy. It's because he hasn't been tried, so that's what you do.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by PCM2 ( 4486 )

          That's not necessarily a political statement, it's journalistic standards. War hasn't been declared.

          OK, so if the press dropped the word "war" altogether and instead used the phrase, "the United States and Israel's unprovoked attacks on Iran," would you be satisfied with that?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by evanh ( 627108 )

            Good call! :)

          • Am I satisfied? I wasn't expressing a need or an opinion. I was just pointing out that if a journalist says "war in Iran" they might also not be expressing an opinion.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by evanh ( 627108 )

              PCM2 was pointing out how the narrative around Israel's behaviour is carefully curated in western media. Every article is procedurally and consciously self-censored, from the top down. Anyone that steps out of line is out on the street, pronto.

              • Were they? Maybe they think that, I don't know. I don't see anywhere on this thread where PCM2 points out anything like that. Maybe you mean ArchieBunker? How many accounts do people have around here?

                It's a sweeping statement. Zero tolerance, throughout the entirety of the western media, really? The kind of statement that would require evidence to be taken seriously. The use of "war in" instead of "war with" isn't good evidence. It has a mundane explanation, which is all I pointed out.

      • Of course they use careful wording. Not doing so means lying, and that is actually still punishable by law even in the US when done on the airways. That's why propaganda outlets like Fox News make sure not to fall under FCC jurisdiction, and those who do fall under FCC, or who want to be quoted by those who do, are very careful with their wording.

    • Re:Trump Iran Crisis (Score:5, Informative)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Tuesday April 28, 2026 @02:06PM (#66117010) Journal

      Epstein Files Oil Distraction Plan

    • It already had a name, it's the Trump Iran Crisis. Now people are trying to whitewash it?

      Literally no one has called it that. I'm not fan of the Orange Shitstain, but the official name was the 2026 Iran War, and the fuel shortage is the 2026 Strait of Hormuz Crisis.

      Basically has been since week one of this moronic episode by our master negotiator.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by gtall ( 79522 )

      I think you mean the Trump-Epstein Iran Crisis.

  • And the Federal Reserve going to do if the PetroDollar crashes & burns? Go back to the gold standard? What other standard will they use?

    • This is already why the US went after Iran. Economic stability in disguise. Population growth is slowing to the point that Social Security and Medicare will collapse under its obligations unless we can just continue to inflate our way out of things. And inflation only works for the US because the dollar still has value outside of the US because people are trading with it and holding it.

    • I believe this is why immediet action was taken when Iran started using bitcoin in their transactions. A lot of people really don't understand how benwficial it is to the USA that crude sales are all done in USD as opposed to the currwncy the seller chooses.

  • That can't be a bad thing. Hopefully a race to the bottom for oil prices.

  • UAE ... would exit ... OPEC, along with the wider group of partners known as OPEC+ ...

    Is OPEC+ their streaming service? :-)

  • Fair enough, since they are no longer in the business of exporting oil.

    The Saudi's still export some, via their pipeline to the Red Sea.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PCM2 ( 4486 )

      Fair enough, since they are no longer in the business of exporting oil.

      How do you figure that one? Oil and gas are about 30% of the UAE's GDP. They're something like the fourth-largest exporter worldwide. And leaving OPEC will allow them to increase production however they see fit, unrestrained by OPEC rules.

      • Then what is the other 70% of Emirates' GDP?

        • Then what is the other 70% of Emirates' GDP?

          You could have just looked it up

          The remaining 70–75% of the UAE's GDP (often referred to as the non-oil sector) is a highly diversified mix of industries led by trade, manufacturing, financial services, and construction. Recent data for 2024 and early 2025 indicates that the non-oil sector's contribution has hit historic highs, reaching approximately 77.3% of real GDP in the first quarter of 2025

  • Good (Score:4, Funny)

    by Bahbus ( 1180627 ) on Tuesday April 28, 2026 @05:24PM (#66117310) Homepage

    Fuck OPEC and fuck Saudi Arabia - bunch of useless cunts.

  • “The Stone Age did not end because the world ran out of stones. The Oil Age will not end because the world runs out of oil.” - Former Saudi Oil Minister Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani

    The world will one day stop burning oil. We can likely guess today how much will actually be consumed in the next 50 years and the UAE knows that number is less than the current developed reserves. Anyone who doesn't sell their oil soon isn't going to sell it at all. And soon everyone will realize it. The price wi

    • The world will one day stop burning oil.

      Some people, including Trump, are working very hard to push that day as far as possible.

Slashdot Top Deals

"I prefer rogues to imbeciles, because they sometimes take a rest." -- Alexandre Dumas (fils)

Close