BP Chairman Ousted After Boardroom Clashes With Director and Chief Executive
Internal conflicts between Albert Manifold and senior BP figures preceded his unanimous removal, leaving the company searching for a third chair in under a year.
The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday (2026-06-01) that Albert Manifold had clashed with fellow board director Simon Henry and held a fractious relationship with chief executive Murray Auchincloss in the months before his dismissal, citing people familiar with the matter. The disclosure adds substance to BP's announcement of "serious" and "unacceptable" governance concerns that accompanied the board's unanimous decision to remove Manifold with immediate effect on Monday (2026-05-26).5,2
That BP's board could act unanimously against its own chairman reflects the severity of whatever occurred. The board cited failures of "governance standards, oversight and conduct" — language broad enough to cover multiple categories of concern. No specific allegation has been made public.4
Manifold had taken the chair role less than a year ago in July 2025, replacing Helge Lund, who himself faced a near 25 percent vote against his re-election at BP's 2025 annual general meeting from shareholders divided over the company's wavering on its energy transition commitments. Lund received just under 76 percent of votes in favour that day. A protest vote of that scale signals eroding shareholder confidence; Manifold's tenure suggests the underlying tension — unclear strategic direction and contested governance — was not resolved by a change at the top.4
BP shares fell 4.3 percent to 527.4 pence in London on the day of the announcement on Monday (2026-05-26), a sharp reaction for a company whose stock has already been weighed down by crude price softness and strategic uncertainty. ICE Brent front-month was trading at $72.64 as of Thursday (2026-06-25).4
The leadership disruption comes with a financial precedent. Bernard Looney, the former chief executive who preceded Auchincloss, forfeited approximately £32.4 million in remuneration after his departure over separate personal conduct issues. Two senior departures tied to conduct in quick succession raises questions about the board's oversight processes — an irony, given that Manifold himself was removed for failures of oversight and governance standards.2
Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Will Hares said on Monday (2026-05-26) that O'Neill — a recent joiner as of April who remains in place as chief executive — and the next permanent chair "must rekindle investor confidence in the company's strategy and internal controls." The succession challenge is harder than a simple appointment: BP needs a chair who can stabilise the relationship between management and a shareholder base that has used the AGM as a pressure point and may do so again.3
The boardroom turmoil sits against a deteriorating backdrop for North Sea investment. Britain's effective tax rate on upstream production stands at 78 percent, among the highest in the world, and has already deterred capital from a basin with high extraction costs and maturing fields. North Sea revenues once reached 3 percent of GDP at their mid-1980s peak; the current fiscal and governance environment represents a substantial departure from those years. The Economist observed in May (2026-05-17) that talk of a North Sea renaissance is "fanciful" given the prevailing policy constraints — a conclusion BP's leadership instability does nothing to contradict.1
The next chair search will unfold in public, with a contested strategy still unresolved and a share price reflecting investor uncertainty about where BP is heading. How quickly the company can appoint credible board leadership will determine whether the governance premium Manifold was supposed to deliver can be recovered at all.3