Where does BP go from here? The oil major has been pitched into a degree of chaos after its Irish chief executive, Bernard Looney, resigned due to his failure “to disclose past relationships with colleagues”, as the company put it when announcing his departure on Tuesday.
The end of Looney at the top of the firm leaves a leadership vacuum, and brings fresh questions about BP’s plans to reach net zero emissions by 2050.
Under the Kerryman, BP had aggressively moved into renewables – hydrogen and wind energy in particular. The strategy had been questioned by some investors as moving too fast, and Looney had rowed back on some of his ambitions for the business.
Still, there was little doubt on BP’s direction of travel under Looney, and the push differentiated the firm from some of its peers which remain firmly wedded to fossil fuels. Now, all of that is up for grabs once again.
A BP lifer, Looney had a huge level of support among the rank and file at the company. For many employees, they have lost their undisputed leader.
What’s more, there is no obvious internal successor. This is perhaps understandable. While company boards in general are presumed to have war-gamed what to do if the chief executive keeled over tomorrow, the reality is that Looney is just 53 and was in the job less than four years. There was no real indication that serious succession planning would be needed for a while yet.
This matters because BP historically chooses its chief executive from within its ranks. Over the past 30 years, four of its five chiefs joined as trainees. The fifth, Bob Dudley, was with BP for more than a decade before being tabbed for the top job.
Murray Auchincloss, the chief financial officer, has been named as interim chief executive. Traditionally though, the top job has gone to someone from the exploration and production side of the business.
In many companies, this sort of power vacuum is resolved by a proverbial knife fight on the executive floor. Watch out for blood on the carpet in London’s St James’s Square.
