This OPEC meeting was already expected to be explosive.

For everyone, who had some idea about the undercurrents, it was certain that parties were prepared to play hardball.

Yet most, if not all, including this scribe had a feeling that ultimately things would smoothen out.

That it did not happen in the end — is another story.

And this makes the very idea of foretelling the outcome of an OPEC outing, professionally hazardous.

For the first time in more than at least 20 years, OPEC failed to agree on an output regimen — six members opposing the move to increase output.

“It was one of the worst meetings we’ve ever had,” Petroleum and Mineral Resources Minister Ali Al-Naimi said after those five hours of intense deliberations in Vienna.

“We were unable to reach an agreement.”

And later he added: “In my last 16 years as minister, I have not seen an obstinate position without move — like this meeting. Normally, we have differences, we debate, we argue, we convince and finally we come to a consensus. There was no way (this time) we can move from our position.”

Saudi Arabia and three other GCC members, Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE, proposed an increase, which would have legitimized the current overproduction besides boosting actual supply somewhat too.

Yet six OPEC members, Libya, Angola, Ecuador, Algiers, Iran and Venezuela, opposed vehemently.

“We kept trying to convince the six, in the interest of OPEC, to have a cohesive agreement. No success. We spent three hours trying to convince the six with no move,” Al-Naimi stressed later.

The positions of the two sides appeared irreconcilable.

“First of all, we looked at the data submitted by the secretary of the OPEC and also by the economic advisers. They all agreed at their meeting, that April production for the total OPEC, including Libya and Iraq, was 28.8 million bpd and they looked at the requirements for the third quarter and the requirements for the fourth quarter. The call on OPEC for third quarter is to be 30.9 million bpd and for the fourth quarter it is to be 30.5 million bpd. When you average both over the current production, it is about 1.6 or 1.7 million bpd and that’s the delta. So that is the reason we said OPEC should add 1.5 million bpd over the 28.8 million bpd... that is what the four GCC members recommended,” the minister underlined.

The opposing OPEC members on the other hand remained wary of the global economic outlook, particularly in the wake of the euro zone debt crisis, Japan’s nuclear emergency and the fading health of the global economy.

Venezuela appeared concerned, that crude prices would tumble if OPEC increased quotas.

“There was a proposal to raise output by between 1.5 million barrels a day and two million,” Rafael Ramirez, the country’s oil minister, said in an interview with state television.

“Given the uncertainties in the market, we thought that could cause the price of oil to collapse.”

And with split out in public, markets received a cue.

Prices started firming up in the immediate aftermath. And Saudi Arabia had to step in.

“Saudi Arabia and the other three GCC countries are able and willing to supply whatever the market needs. Although we could not reach an agreement in Vienna, there would be no physical crude shortage in the market. We are willing, we are able and we will deliver what is needed,” Al-Naimi insisted, after the meeting.

“We know that in the third and the fourth quarter additional crude would be required. We have the capacity to deliver and we will deliver it,” he added, clarifying, “not only the 1.5 million bpd, but whatever the market needed. If it needs less we will if they need more we will,” he was emphatic.

And markets confirmed immediate action. Saudi Arabia was reportedly offering more crude to Asian refiners in July, industry sources with direct knowledge of negotiations revealed on Friday.

This was the first evidence that the Kingdom is taking steps to fill in the gap.

The country will boost production to 10 million barrels per day in July, a local daily said Friday, easing the concern that supply may dip following the lack of agreement in Vienna last Wednesday.

This dampened the market spirits.

Crude futures tumbled below $100 a barrel, wiping out three straight days of gains.

Light, sweet crude for July delivery settled $2.64, or 2.6 percent, lower at $99.29 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Brent crude on the ICE futures exchange closed 79 cents, or 0.7 percent, lower at $118.78 a barrel.

However, the gap between the world’s two major oil benchmarks, Nymex-traded West Texas Intermediate and Europe’s Brent, widened to a new record. And this is bound to be a concern to the energy markets in the days and the months to come — one could safely project.

What are to be the repercussions of this non-conclusive OPEC meeting mean to the crude world? Nothing much — in real sense — one could safely say with some insight.

The intransigent OPEC six — who opposed the move — practically did not had any additional capacity to put on the market.

The spare capacity was available with the camp insisting on enhancing the output.

Saudi Arabia has the bulk of it. The remaining capacity is with the UAE and Kuwait. And they all insisted on enhancing output.

And with Saudi Arabia saying in clear terms, it would be ready to produce and sell whatever the market requires and needs — practically means markets are to stay balanced.

Output quotas are no restraining factor.

To crude markets, this lack of consensus in Vienna is not going to make a major difference in terms of physical shortage.

Yet one concern is definitely on the horizon.

As a consequence of the enhanced output from Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies, the available spare cushion is going to dwindle. And the idle, mothballed capacity is important for the psyche of the crude markets — one can’t help underlining.

Steps seem already underway.

Saudi Aramco is reportedly advancing the Manifa project — attempting to bring it on stream earlier than scheduled.

This is definitely aimed at restoring the cushion.

Yet this declining spare cushion and the widening NYMEX and Brent gap are issues that would keep the energy world haunting — for the time being at least.