Shock and opportunity: The consequences of the UAE’s OPEC exit

Abu Dhabi’s break with the cartel could flood markets, rattle prices, and redraw power lines from Riyadh to Moscow

By Igbal Guliyev, dean of the School of Financial Economics at MGIMO University, doctor of economics and professor

© Getty Images / solvod

The United Arab Emirates has announced its withdrawal from OPEC and the OPEC+ format effective May 1, 2026, ending nearly six decades of membership. This marks the largest institutional disruption to the oil production coordination system since the establishment of the expanded OPEC+ format in 2016 and is perceived by the market as a step towards weakening the group’s ability to influence global oil prices.

At the same time, the move reflects Abu Dhabi’s strategic course towards maximizing its own production and increasing its market share, while maintaining its image as a ‘responsible supplier’ and relying on the long‑term growth of global energy demand.

The UAE’s withdrawal objectively leads to the potential growth of global oil production, and as a consequence, to downward pressure on prices in the medium term – especially after the unblocking of the Strait of Hormuz. It is already being described as one of the most notable institutional shifts in the energy market over the past decade. The Emirati authorities present this step as a “strategic re‑evaluation project” aligned with national economic interests, rather than a one‑off conflict over quotas.

From an economic perspective, the issue is not just about how many barrels Abu Dhabi and Dubai will produce but about the very architecture of global oil coordination. OPEC and OPEC+ are ceasing to be a monolith even in the formal sense: One of the largest and most flexible producers is moving into ‘independent mode’, transforming the market from a quota‑cartel structure into a more fragmented and sensitive one – a market driven not only by economics but also by geopolitics.

Why the UAE wanted out

In recent years, tensions have been building up between the UAE and Saudi Arabia over the issue of quota allocation within OPEC+. The UAE invested in expanding production capacity but was restricted in its ability to monetize it due to collective commitments to cut output. In fact, even before the official announcement in 2026, the UAE repeatedly signaled dissatisfaction with the level of its quotas and a desire for greater autonomy in making production decisions.

Official statements from the UAE government and Energy Minister Suhail Al Mazrouei stress that the decision to withdraw from OPEC constitutes a sovereign political decision in the field of energy policy, adopted following a “prolonged and thorough review” of the national strategy. The official wording highlights several key motives:

• Alignment with the UAE’s long‑term strategic and economic vision and the evolution of the country’s energy sector.
• Primary emphasis on national interests and strategic priorities, ensuring the continued perception of the country as a responsible and reliable supplier.
• The anticipated sustainable growth of global energy demand in the medium- and long-term perspective justifies the expansion of the UAE’s own production and investments in the capacity foundation.

The key economic factor behind the decision is the significant expansion of the UAE’s production capacity and the drive to fully monetize it outside the constraints of a rigid quota system.

It should be noted that the UAE’s current production stands at around 3.4-3.5 million barrels per day (bpd), with plans to increase capacity to 5 million bpd by 2027 through investments in upstream projects.

Over the past several years, the UAE has invested substantial resources in expanding its production base, including through the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, thereby enhancing both nominal capacity and the quality of its crude oil, as well as improving environmental performance (low carbon intensity). However, within OPEC and OPEC+, a portion of this capacity has effectively remained underutilized due to existing restrictions. This has caused economic dissatisfaction and prompted the search for a more flexible operating regime.

For the UAE, where GDP growth and fiscal sustainability are closely tied to hydrocarbon exports, the ability to more aggressively ramp up production as global demand recovers and grows is seen as a way to accelerate the monetization of resources ahead of a potential structural shift in demand towards low‑carbon sources. In this context, leaving OPEC is perceived by Abu Dhabi as a means of protecting national revenue from external constraints and the asymmetry of interests within the organization.

The primary economic motive for the UAE’s exit from OPEC can be summarized briefly: The country no longer intends to keep its production capacity within the limits set by the collective system when it believes it can produce and export more than the quotas allow. This has been explicitly stated by UAE officials, who point to the need to “revise production policy and strengthen autonomy in managing the oil and gas sector.”

The medium-term goal is to increase production by more than 30% and strengthen the UAE’s position as a key supplier to fast-growing Asian markets, including China and India. The authorities stress that OPEC quotas, at a time when the country is completing large-scale investment cycles in oil and gas projects, begin to look like an artificial brake on potential.

Against this backdrop, leaving OPEC appears to be part of a broader diversification strategy. The UAE is simultaneously developing traditional oil export flows, natural gas, petrochemicals, and low‑carbon sectors, including renewable energy. In this model, oil and gas are not an end in themselves but a source of capital for further diversification. Consequently, any restrictions on export volumes automatically slow down progress along this trajectory.

The benefits and risks for the UAE

The financial benefits are clear. In the short and medium term, the country gains the opportunity to ramp up exports when prices are favorable, reallocate flows towards more solvent markets, and accelerate the implementation of infrastructure and petrochemical projects, using waves of high prices as a ‘capital catcher’.

This could lead to a significant increase in export revenue and faster accumulation of foreign exchange reserves – which is particularly important for an economy actively participating in global financial flows.

However, the economic risks are also significant.

Firstly, leaving OPEC weakens the collective market-stabilization mechanism, which increases price volatility. In an environment where oil prices become more erratic, budget planning becomes more challenging: Revenues fluctuate sharply, and fiscal buffers and reserve funds must be designed to accommodate a wider range of scenarios.

Secondly, the UAE partially loses the political weight and institutional influence that OPEC+ membership provided. Instead of jointly taking part in shaping the rules of the game, the UAE becomes a major but standalone player whose decisions are perceived by the market as an external factor rather than as part of an institutional consensus. This raises the risk that, in times of crisis, the UAE could be viewed as a destabilizing factor – which in turn could increase pressure from partners and regulators.

The exit from OPEC carries not only economic but also symbolic significance: It demonstrates the UAE’s readiness to pursue its own course amid the fragmentation of the regional security architecture and energy coordination.

Impact on global oil trade

From a supply-side perspective, the UAE’s departure implies the potential introduction of additional volumes into the market in the medium term – 1 to 1.5 million bpd – as production expands and transportation infrastructure is restored. Combined with a possible reaction from other producers, this leads to the following:

• a reduction in the market’s overall fear of a supply deficit, and as a consequence, downward pressure on forward quotations.
• a weakening of the influence of OPEC+ signals and strengthening of individual producers’ strategies.
• a further shift in the market’s center of gravity towards competition among major independent players (the US and others).

From a short‑term perspective, the market could react to the UAE’s exit as a ‘risk shock’. Any news about quota revisions, increases in production volumes, or disruptions in logistics in the Strait of Hormuz area will amplify volatility. At the beginning of this scenario, both upward and downward price spikes are possible as market participants revise their forecasts regarding future supply levels and prices.

In the medium term, the key question is whether other producers will follow the UAE’s lead and whether real discipline will be maintained among the remaining OPEC+ members. If so, relative stabilization is possible – albeit with higher baseline volatility. If not, the market could shift to a mode in which supply is driven not by coordination but by individual decisions, leading to more frequent and severe price fluctuations.

For the global economy, this implies increased uncertainty in energy costs, more complex planning of investment programs, and higher risk premiums in financial markets. In importing countries, rising oil price instability exacerbates challenges in managing inflation and jeopardizes the sustainability of budgets and the balance of trade.

Russia’s challenges and opportunities

From a geoeconomic perspective, the UAE’s exit from OPEC fits into a broader trend of fragmentation in global energy governance and the growing role of regional and bilateral ties. For Russia, this creates both risks to budget revenues and an opportunity to deepen bilateral energy and financial-investment cooperation with the Emirates within the evolving architecture of the global oil market.

Regarding Russia’s reaction to the UAE’s withdrawal, the initial public response came from Finance Minister Anton Siluanov, who directly linked it to the prospect of increased global production and lower prices in the future. According to him, the UAE’s departure means the country will be able to produce as much oil as capacity allows and bring it to the market without restrictions. If other OPEC countries begin to act in a similar way, total supply will rise and prices will fall.

Siluanov stressed that current prices are mainly supported by the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and the associated supply risks, while the surplus supply effect he projects will materialize once shipping is restored. At the same time, the Russian side explicitly notes the preservation of close relations with the UAE and Saudi Arabia, as well as its interest in continuing coordination within an expanded producer format even as OPEC+ weakens institutionally. This aligns with Russian energy diplomacy, which aims to maintain informal coordination channels and strengthen bilateral cooperation with key regional players. For Russia, this creates both challenges and opportunities.

Among the key challenges are the potential drop in oil prices, which directly affects budget revenues and development financing capabilities, and the weakening of collective coordination mechanisms through which Russia has been able to influence the market via OPEC+.

The opportunities include: Deepening energy, investment, and financial cooperation with the UAE as an increasingly independent geoeconomic player interested in diversifying its partners; developing joint projects in logistics (bypassing the Strait of Hormuz and using alternative routes), oil, and petroleum product trade, as well as in the area of sovereign wealth funds and payment infrastructure, with a focus on de-dollarization; Using the bilateral format to align approaches to market stabilization during critical moments – complementing, rather than replacing, formal OPEC+ mechanisms.

The UAE’s exit from OPEC and OPEC+ should not be interpreted as a collapse in prices or the outright disintegration of the cartel. Rather, it represents a transition to a new regime in which the role of collective quotas diminishes and the importance of national economic interests, geopolitical games, and individual market decisions increases.

For Russia, the key challenge is to adapt its budgetary and energy policies to a potential decline in prices amid rising supply, while simultaneously deepening strategic partnerships with the UAE and other major exporters in Asia and the Middle East. In the context of growing fragmentation in global energy governance, it is the combination of flexible domestic policy and active geoeconomic diplomacy that can mitigate risks and transform the structural shift into sources of additional influence and resilience.