Take another quiz >
thumb

OPEC Countries Quiz

Name the members of OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.
Give Up?
Enter country here:
0 / 14 guessed
The quiz is paused. You have remaining.
Scoring
You scored /14 = %.
This beats or equals % of test takers
The average score is
Your high score is
Your best time is remaining
Points
You have earned / 5 points for this quiz
This quiz is not eligible for points
Next Level
/
Keep scrolling down for answers and more stats ...
×
Help

Enter answers in the area marked "Enter country here".

You can enter any answer, at any time - they don't have to be in order

Punctuation and capitalization don't matter on JetPunk.

Country
Country
Country
Answer Stats
Country
% Correct
Your %
+3
level 45
Feb 29, 2012
Thought Indonesia was still on but forgot they suspended membership in January 2009
+2
level 54
Feb 10, 2016
Indonesia rejoined in late 2015/early 2016.
+8
level 53
Nov 27, 2017
Yeah, and he replied before that happened.
+1
level 50
Jul 8, 2018
Try, he replied once they rejoined, but it wasn't put back on the quiz.
+1
level 33
Dec 23, 2012
9.
+1
level 63
Jun 9, 2014
too easy
+4
level 60
Aug 9, 2014
Is it coincidence that most of these countries have not-very-friendly relations with the US?
+6
level ∞
Aug 9, 2014
I think it's not a coincidence, but maybe not for the reason you are implying. There is something about an economy based on resource extraction that leads to bad governance. In any case, OPEC will be irrelevant within a couple decades due to greater oil production in North America and increasing reliance on solar. Just my two cents.
+4
level 73
Aug 27, 2014
Greater oil production in North America won't mean very much because a) Americans will use all the oil they produce. Greater American supply won't affect world markets much at all. OPEC will make up their losses by selling to China and India etc. and b) American reserves will just dwindle that much faster, and once they're completely gone, but American demand has not dropped off, suddenly OPEC becomes much more relevant than they used to be.
and solar is not going to get us off oil, either. Though through a combination of existing technologies (nuclear, hydroelectric, geothermal, natural gas, "clean" coal, wind, sugar cane ethanol, hydrogen, etc) and better implementation of methods to eliminate, reduce, or make more efficient current power usage... it's entirely possible that we could stop using oil altogether, and eventually get off fossil fuels completely. But, we won't. Not until there is no longer trillions of dollars of the stuff left in the ground and profits to be made.
+1
level 77
Aug 27, 2014
“Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as "bad luck.” ― Robert A. Heinlein This applies to countries that happen to be sitting on oil as well as those countries that do not happen to sit on oil.
+1
level 44
Aug 29, 2014
Americans won't use all the oil they produce. They are only too happy to refine it into gasoline and other products and sell it to whoever wants it.
+2
level 73
Sep 3, 2014
The USA produces 8 billion barrels of oil a day and consumes 20. Production in the US is predicted to eclipse 10 billion/day, overtaking Saudi Arabia and Russia, but it will never be as high as demand.
+1
level 50
Jul 8, 2018
@beetboy12 Most Americans with an ounce of common sense wouldn't be happy to ship petroleum around the world so they could import twice as much from around the world to meet demand. Sounds like a costly little merry go round where only the ticket takers are happy.
+1
level 73
Aug 27, 2014
In spite of somewhat popular opinion to the contrary, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE all have very friendly relations with the USA. Some of these other countries have a similar back story... i.e. Venezuela nationalized (stole) the oil infrastructure in the country that been completely built from scratch by Americans, just like Iran nationalized (stole) the infrastructure that had been built by the British, and Western support for the Western-friendly opponents of the thugs and thieves who came to power made for strained relations with said thugs and thieves. However, the same thing happened in Saudi Arabia and everything was actually fine. The government there was more business-minded and willing to try and maintain positive relations with the USA, and so they did, even after stealing Aramco. A lot of it also goes back to the Cold War, and some has to do with the Monroe Doctrine.
+5
level 71
Aug 27, 2014
Oh come on, "stole"?! The USA and the UK were plundering Iran's wealth and giving nothing back but dictatorship. You know, the usual. Iran nationalised its oil because it belongs to Iran, not to the USA or to the UK, and because the USA and the UK would not agree fair terms. In return, the USA and the UK staged a coup (orchestrated by the gloriously-named Kermit Roosevelt) which toppled the democratically elected government and installed a cruel dictator. The people of Iran overthrew that dictator on the promise of a better life, but ended up instead with another cruel dictator. In short, Iran was a democracy that could have been a strong, Westernised stabilising influence on the region. but instead is now a basket case run by religious lunatics.
+2
level 73
Aug 27, 2014
yeah... that's a commonly believed fiction. The royal family in Iran had ruled for thousands of years. It's not like they were invented by the CIA. The Shah was unpopular for a number of reasons but mostly because he, like every strongman ruler in this part of the world who is able to maintain peace and prosperity did so at the cost of allowing the expression of public opinion. They do this because they know that the strongest opponents to their rule are always the hardline Islamists and that these people will not be cowed easily. Thus, brutal dictatorships everywhere from Iran to Iraq to Egypt... some supported by the West and some in opposition to it, it really does not matter. They have the same style of government regardless. Either a strongman who is willing to forcefully crush opposition and repress Islamists, making himself unpopular amongst conservatives and liberals alike in the process, or anarchy, chaos, religious blood letting and tribal warfare.
+2
level 73
Aug 27, 2014
In Iran we had a Shah who really pissed off the radical fundamentalists because he did things like introduce education for women and try to modernize and Westernize the country, promote friendly relations with the West, and not call for the destruction of Jews. But the voice of the radicals was not strong enough to depose him. There was a prime minister of the country who was elected, but legally he did not have much power. The P.M. gained popularity, like many who came after him, for blaming Iran's problems on external bogeyman like the big bad USA, and calling for things like the theft of all oil infrastructure in the country. He usurped power from the Shah illegally. He destabilized the country. The USA supported the Shah's return to power. He was liberal, Western-friendly, and the line of kings he came from had been in power 2500 years longer than Mossadegh. The Shah remained in power, again strong enough to repress his Islamist opponents, until the economy in Iran had a downturn.
+1
level 73
Aug 27, 2014
Of course after the economy worsened then opposition to the Shah increased and grew from something focused mostly among Islamist radicals and in academia to a broadly popular movement, resulting in huge demonstrations in Tehran. The Shah fled. His chief political opponent Khomeini was welcomed back. How this was America's fault is a mystery. If the Iranians loved liberal democracy so much then it's not clear why they didn't adopt that after they chased out the Shah. Instead they ended up with repressive theocracy 10x worse than anything that Shah put the country through. A country run by ideologues that chose war and antagonism over democracy or stability. The fantasy that Iran was a peaceful democratic Utopia and then America came along and screwed it up is just flat out wrong.
+2
level 73
Aug 27, 2014
As to the stealing, that's exactly what it was. Let's see... your government invites foreigners in, agrees to sell concessions to oil companies that will prospect and look for oil- something you don't have anything like the expertise or resources to do yourself, and after years of hard work and millions/billions of dollars in investment those foreign companies are able to find oil and build the elaborate and expensive infrastructure necessary to extract them, all the while honoring their part of the deal by paying whatever was agreed to when the concession was signed. Then one day the government decides, "hey, they're making a lot of money, we like money, I think we'll take that." They reneg on the agreements, force the companies out that made all the investments and did all the work, and then claim all the profits for themselves? Yes. That is stealing.
+1
level 73
Aug 27, 2014
"In short, Iran was a democracy that could have been a strong, Westernised stabilising influence on the region. but instead is now a basket case run by religious lunatics."

This is just so wrong on so many levels. The Shah was behind the Westernization of Iran. It's one of the things that made him unpopular. He also wanted peaceful relations with the USA, Europe, Israel, Sunni Iraq (you know stability)... that was another thing that made him unpopular. One guy was in power for about a year who was elected, but he was not elected to the level of power that he eventually claimed for himself. He managed to steal power similar to how Hitler did it (who was also elected, but not to be Fuhrer. His position was supposed to have little power). Iran was never democratic. It flirted with Westernization and stability (under the Shah), but these things didn't take.
+4
level 67
Aug 27, 2014
To compare what happened with Iran to what happened with Saudi Arabia is misleading. American owned ARAMCO agreed to the Saudis' terms of creating a 50/50 profit sharing deal between the country and ARAMCO which allowed the Saudis to also make a decent profit from their own oil. AIOC (BP) was not willing to negotiate with Iran over their oil. Exclusive rights to prospect had been sold to a London native, William D'Arcy, for 60 years in exchange for a heafty payout to Mozaffar al-Din Shah Qajar (D'Arcy later sold most of the rights to the Glasgow-based Burmah Oil Company of which AIOC was a subsidiary), but it wasn't an equitable deal for the Iranian population. Although Teymourtash, an Iranian statesman, re-negotiated the terms to a slightly more favorable arrangement, Reza Shah aquieced to demands from the British in exchange for a relatively small annual payment.
+3
level 67
Aug 27, 2014
In addition, AIOC was supposed to help improve Iran's infrastructure and improve workers' pay and condidions which they failed to do. In 1941, the Soviet Union and Britain invaded Iran in order to remove Reza Shah and replace him with his son (and your champion of Western values), Mohammad Reza Shah, who was much more amenable to Soviet and British interests. Matters only became worse for Iranians especially for the AIOC workers, so they elected Mohammed Mossadegh, who promised to champion the interests of Iranians as Prime Minister. AIOC refused to even consider a deal similar to the ARAMCO deal, so the National Consultative Assembly of Iran voted to nationalize Iranian oil. Whether or not it was the appropriate solution to Iran's issues with AIOC and Britain, the nationalization was done as a direct response to abuse and exploitation (not to mention invasion) from the west.
+5
level 67
Aug 27, 2014
To call the nationalization "stealing" is to look at the issue from the eyes of the British and the British only. To act like people resented the Shah only because he was socially liberal is untrue. People resented him because he represented Western interests (including those of the U.S. after the coup which eliminated Iran's elected prime minister, thus stealing their only real democratic tool) at the expense of Iranians.
+1
level 73
Aug 28, 2014
I've worked at Saudi Aramco and teach the history of the company here, even their in-house text books don't paint as rosy a picture as you do! :D There was no negotiation. The companies didn't agree to split profits 50/50. The Saudis simply took 50% of the profits, and then the American government stepped in and give the oil companies the other 50% that they were losing so as to avoid straining ties with their allies in Riyadh. Whether or not the deal was "equitable" in either case is a bit irrelevant. A deal's a deal. Theft is theft. I'm not even necessarily saying it was wrong. Nation-states are essentially well-organized gangs who control sections of turf, and protecting their own self-interest particularly within their own borders is a pretty well established internationally acceptable practice, at least up until the point of genocide. But still, they stole it.
+1
level 73
Aug 28, 2014
I didn't say the Shah was *only* unpopular because he was liberal, but you say because he represented Western interests and to Iranians that was sort of the same thing. The Shah was known for living a very lavish lifestyle. This made him unpopular with the common people who were stuggling economically, but for a while the economy in Iran was actually booming so the discontent did not reach critical mass. When the economy got worse, the Shah was chased out of the country. Aside from this perceived elitism the common man's anger with the Shah was all tied in with his perceived Westerness/liberalism. He had women going to college in Tehran without wearing hijab. He was a Zionist and recognized the state of Israel. He encouraged secularism and multiculturalism. and the Islamists that opposed him for these reasons were exiled, imprisoned, tortured, or worse. Mossadegh was an opportunist that blamed the bad economy on the "Western" Shah allowing Brits to steal the nation's oil.
+1
level 73
Aug 28, 2014
and btw that 50/50 profit sharing thing didn't last long, either. Aramco is now fully owned by the AlSaud family and 100% of the profits find their way into the king's and his family members' pockets.
+3
level 40
Aug 28, 2014
I might be playing devil's advocate here K but Iran arguably re-negged on the agreements they made with the oil companies because when they realised they were being screwed over there was no concessions offered. And also, it's pretty hard to argue that America wasn't responsible at least to some extent. Sure the shah's bloodline may have been ruling for ages but that doesn't mean he has a right to rule. The US undeniably helped to prop him up in the face of some clear opposition - perhaps if some attempt to reach common ground with those feeling disenfranchised had been made earlier then we wouldn't have seen the popularity of radical ideology rise so quickly. On this point, it's a little harsh to characterise Middle Eastern Countries as either dictatorial and peaceful or democratic and tribal. Places like Indo show that there is a middle ground. Lastly, just because I had a bit of a chuckle here, please inform me how you can legally usurp a dictator.
+4
level 65
Aug 28, 2014
"Stealing" is beyond ridiculous in these instances. The natural ressources belong to the people, and when you sign a deal allowing you to steal those natural ressources, you expose yourself to the people's right of changing their mind (if, indeed, they were ever consulted in the first place). You were profiteering from the theft that might have been perpetrated by these people's governments, hoping noone would notice, you made a shitload of money, you shouldn't come whining that you were prevented from making even more money on the backs of populations.
+3
level 67
Aug 28, 2014
From "From Arab Nationalism to Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries" by Nathan J. Citino: "In 1950, King Abdulaziz threatened to nationalize his country's oil facilities, thus pressuring Aramco to agree to share profits 50/50." ARAMCO ended up having to settle for the "golden gimmick". Sounds like a negotiation to me, even if it's an indirect and heavy handed one. "Whether or not the deal was "equitable" in either case is a bit irrelevant." It was clearly relevant to the Iranians and Saudis!
+1
level 60
Aug 28, 2014
So, are they members of OPEC or not??
+1
level 73
Aug 28, 2014
monkey: your comment is reasonable and I already said that it wasn't necessarily "wrong" what the Iranians did. This is the squishy realm of political theory where there are no blacks and whites just a lot of grays. However, they still failed to honor their agreements and stole millions in valuable infrastructure, whether they were right to do it or not. People were getting on my case about which words I used and I stand by my word choice. The US had a hand in how things went down in Iran, sure, but blaming the USA for Iran being overrun by backward religious zealots and anti-Western ideologues, when the US did everything it could to prevent that, is stupid. *Maybe* if they had taken a different route, it's possible that Iran would have become the very first and only secular liberal peaceful Muslim democracy in the Middle East... good thing I don't have to keep a straight face when typing comments or I'm sure I would have blown that.
+1
level 73
Aug 28, 2014
gandalf: wth are you on about? I didn't profit from anything. I'm not a stakeholder in British Petroleum.
DB: okay so their "negotiation" was... "give us 50% of your money which we're prepared to offer you absolutely nothing for, or we will take by force 100%." Right. thanks for making my point for me.
The only thing relevant to the AlSauds was greed. In Iran the situation was a bit different. Public opinion was manipulated by politicians trying to make a cynical power grab. The issue was made relevant to the politics of Iran. It remains irrelevant to the meaning of the word theft or the concept of ownership or contract. If you hadn't taken my words out of context...
+2
level 40
Aug 28, 2014
For sure, but I feel like if you're going to come out and say they stole it, which again I'm not saying is incorrect nomenclature, it's also important to acknowledge the nuance of the case at hand; ie that the new Iranian government wasn't really given a whole lot of alternatives to 'stealing'. Otherwise you're just baiting. Furthermore, I wasn't implying that there would be a perfect liberal secular democracy in Iran. I was merely saying it was ignorant to characterise majority Islamic countries as either autocratic and prosperous; or democratic and self-destructive and pointed to Indo as an example. It's not as if every Iranian is a religious zealot, a lot of them despite the nature of their government are quite friendly and intelligent people, even towards Americans. But you're right, political theory is very grey. I'm just offering a perspective from a different framework without being outraged and scornful at what you have to say.
+2
level 67
Aug 28, 2014
That only means that one side was better at negotiating than the other...And the only thing relevant to the British was greed. What's your point? As for Iran, public opinion was also manipulated by the British invasion (which was used to manipulate the terms of the oil arrangements), the reneging of the obligation of AIOC to improve Iran's infrastructure, the poor pay and lack of advancement opportunities for the many AIOC workers that they employed in Iran, and the lack of willingness to renegotiate the terms of their previous deal.
+3
level 54
Aug 29, 2014
I think fox news would love to have you on their program. It is quite comical to claim things that a country would steal its own resources from an imperial power. Your rants and tirades attempt to label certain countries as innately ungovernable people and that imperialism by the west is somehow necessary. Yet you are blind to the fact that the USA seeks nothing but disorder in the middle east to ensure no regional power can be strong enough to challenge their power. If people demand change and with that change comes things like nationalizations, than outside powers need to respect the will of the people. There is seems to be no problem in demonizing any government, even elected ones, that resists imperial interests.
+1
level 73
Sep 3, 2014
monkey: Indonesia is majority Muslim but it's not in the Middle East by any stretch. I said "this part of the world," and later even implied that I meant "from Iran to Egypt" which I thought was clear that I was not talking about SE Asia.

gandalf: every point I wished to make was clearly stated.

Tecumseh: Faux News is a channel not a program. And no, they wouldn't like to have me on. My grasp on reality is too strong. Being faced with reality is not something that Fox enjoys for the same reason that people who want to accuse the USA of intentionally sowing disorder don't like it. It is harmful to the erroneous worldview they have invested themselves in.
+2
level 57
May 28, 2016
My goodness, people can type!
+2
level 65
Jul 22, 2016
And my point stands. Natural resources belong to the people. If an unelected government agrees to an unfair deal to split profits between itself and someone else, the rightful owner of the resources has the right to take them back. That's what nationalisation is, (or should be, in some instances).
+1
level 73
Aug 16, 2016
OH... so what you are saying, gandalf, is that Saudi Arabia and Iran are both perfect democracies and that the governments in power in each place perfectly represent the will of the people? And that those governments equitably distribute all the wealth from the oil to each of their citizens? Because it was the government that stole the oil industry. That's nice.
+2
level 65
Aug 17, 2016
I haven't even remotely said that.
+2
level 73
Aug 17, 2016
Then I'm following your lead in responding to things that nobody said.

Let's look at what you DID explicitly say, then. The rightful owner ("the people," in you estimation) have a right to commandeer the natural resources of a country any time they see fit, their natural ownership rights superseding any and all previous claims, whether legal or not, ignoring any investments made in developing said resources, provided gandalf doesn't like the country's type of government or decides that such deals were "unfair."
okay whatever.
"The people" have NOT taken anything. The gangsters that rule Saudi Arabia, the zealots that rule Iran, and the dictators that rule Venezuela, have stolen these resources to enrich themselves and maintain their grip on power, contributing to the prolonged oppression of "the people" and suppression of any true diplomacy in their countries. So the justification of your fantasy narrative fails totally.
+1
level 58
Aug 18, 2016
dunk, you've been on this site long enough to know that Kal is the superior monologist and any claim to the contrary will result in total pwn-age. kal, thank you for enriching these quizzes with insightful commentary without the delusion of self-obsession. apparently, it's still en vogue to wear the intellectual disease of laziness masquerading as moral sophistication.
+1
level 73
Aug 20, 2016
I've never cared much for style, but I'll take your word for it and assume your comment was meant to be fashionable.
+1
level 73
Aug 20, 2016
*also.. "democracy," not "diplomacy," 3 comments ago...
+2
level 60
Aug 16, 2016
Dear god! What has my one-line comment led to?
+1
level 46
Aug 16, 2016
ikr, that took me like an hour and a half to read
+1
level 50
Aug 16, 2016
More educational than the quiz.
+1
level 28
Aug 16, 2016
You should be used to it turning into a forum by some people, rather than just a quiz.
+2
level 73
Aug 16, 2016
Using the comments section to comment... inconceivable!
+2
level 46
Jul 8, 2018
IKR, you can count on kalbahamut to turn a simple comment into a formal debate with rebuttals and everything. Or a treatise. Or a tome. But you always learn something (if he's not ranting) and sometimes he's funny. So let's keep him! ;)
+1
level 45
Aug 27, 2014
totally
+1
level 15
Aug 31, 2014
here is a hint guys most countries here are in the arabian peninsula
+2
level 73
Sep 3, 2014
4/12 isn't most. If you're going to count Iraq, 5/12 still isn't most.
+1
level 53
Feb 25, 2015
Why doesn't it accept KSA instead of Saudi Arabia
+1
level 73
Aug 16, 2016
right??
+1
level 51
Apr 16, 2016
I always kinda wondered, why is it that other countries that produce large amounts of oil like Russia, Canada, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Gabon, and USA aren't part of OPEC?
+2
level 73
Aug 16, 2016
Well, first of all, OPEC stands for "organization of petroleum EXPORTING countries." Russia and the USA IMPORT oil more than they export it.
Second, what hi said. And also, OPEC was founded in Baghdad in 1960 by Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, the KSA and Venezuela. Other countries have come and gone over the years.

Gabon joined in 1975. It terminated its membership in 1995 but then rejoined last month. The quiz is out-of-date.
+1
level ∞
Aug 16, 2016
Updated.
+1
level 28
Aug 16, 2016
It's not out of date.
+1
level 73
Aug 16, 2016
It's not anymore.
+1
level 49
Aug 16, 2016
Gabon terminated its membership in January 1995. However, it rejoined the Organization in July 2016. http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/about_us/25.htm
+1
level 37
Aug 16, 2016
All very interesting. Do any of you work?
+1
level 73
Aug 20, 2016
Back when I worked full time I spent a lot more time on JetPunk, actually.
+1
level 37
Sep 5, 2016
I am impressed with your all round general knowledge. Have you thought about Mastermind or similar?
+1
level 50
Nov 30, 2016
I second Shearer's idea. It would be very enriching just hearing your thoughts on any topic.
+1
level 73
Jul 8, 2018
I'm not familiar with Mastermind, unless you mean the board game which I've played before with my board game enthusiast friends.
+1
level 55
Aug 17, 2016
http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/about_us/25.htm
+2
level 60
Mar 27, 2018
Indonesia quit again in November 2016. Equatorial Guinea joined the association during 2017. Fix up please
+1
level ∞
Mar 27, 2018
Done, thanks.
+1
level 56
Jul 8, 2018
I'm going to school next to the headquarters of OPEC in Vienna :D
+1
level 51
Jul 8, 2018
Republic of the Congo joined OPEC in Jun 2018
×
Congrats!
You have reached a new level
To save this level, you'll have to
create an account
×
Congrats!
You have earned a new badge
To save this badge, you'll have to
create an account