On Sunday, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and five other members of the OPEC+ grouping agreed to raise production quotas by 188,000 barrels per day for June. The adjustment follows a series of similar incremental increases earlier in the year and is being framed by the producers as a stabilising measure amid volatile energy markets.
The official statement described the adjustment as part of “their collective commitment to support oil market stability,” but notably made no reference to the abrupt withdrawal of the United Arab Emirates from the group just days earlier.
The silence surrounding Abu Dhabi’s exit has drawn attention from analysts, who see it as an attempt to preserve the appearance of unity. One industry observer noted, “By sticking to the same production path — just minus the UAE — it’s acting as if nothing has happened, deliberately downplaying internal fractures and projecting stability.”
UAE Exit Raises Questions About Unity
The OPEC+ alliance, which includes key producers such as Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, and Kazakhstan, has faced periodic internal disagreements over production quotas. The UAE’s departure, however, is being described by analysts as more consequential than previous exits by smaller members.
Energy analyst Amena Bakr called the move “a big deal,” highlighting the UAE’s growing production ambitions and its long-term investment strategy. Its national oil company, ADNOC, has announced plans to significantly expand output capacity to as much as five million barrels per day by 2027—well above its previous quota level of around 3.5 million barrels.
The company also confirmed a $55 billion investment programme over the next two years, signalling a continued push for expansion despite leaving the group’s quota system.
Strait of Hormuz Crisis Limits Real Output Gains
While quota increases suggest higher production on paper, actual global supply is constrained by physical bottlenecks—most notably the disruption in the Strait of Hormuz.
The narrow waterway, one of the world’s most important oil transit routes, has become heavily restricted following the escalation of conflict in the Middle East, including US-Israeli strikes on Iran and retaliatory measures affecting shipping access.
According to energy analysts, these disruptions mean that even when production quotas rise, exports cannot fully reach global markets.
As Rystad Energy analyst Jorge Leon explained, “While output is increasing on paper, the real impact on physical supply remains very limited given the Strait of Hormuz constraints. This is less about adding barrels and more about signalling that OPEC+ still calls the shots.”
He also noted that the latest adjustment is designed to show continuity despite the UAE’s exit, stating that the group is attempting to demonstrate that the withdrawal “would not disrupt how OPEC+ operates.”
Large Gap Between Quotas and Reality
Data cited by analysts shows a widening gap between official production allowances and actual output. In March, total OPEC+ production stood at 27.68 million barrels per day, compared with a collective quota of 36.73 million barrels. That represents a shortfall of roughly 9 million barrels daily.
Much of this gap, according to analysts, is not the result of voluntary restraint but of war-related disruption and logistical constraints affecting Gulf producers.
Kazakhstan and Iraq have also faced repeated scrutiny for exceeding their quotas, raising additional concerns about compliance within the alliance.
Russia, the group’s second-largest producer, has continued to benefit from elevated global prices, but faces its own constraints. The ongoing war in Ukraine, combined with reported drone strikes on energy infrastructure, has limited its ability to consistently meet production targets.
Strategic Signalling Over Supply Expansion
Despite headline quota increases, analysts broadly agree that the OPEC+ decision is more symbolic than operational. The alliance appears focused on maintaining influence over global oil pricing rather than significantly altering supply levels.
As one analyst summarised, “it’s acting as if nothing has happened,” even as internal divisions and external disruptions reshape the energy landscape.
With geopolitical tensions constraining key shipping routes and member cohesion under pressure, the group’s latest move underscores a central paradox: efforts to project stability are unfolding in one of the most unstable periods for global energy flows in recent years.