RE: Competition10 Feb 2025 13:06
Ten years ago BP was the powerful, non-American integrating influence in the energy landscape of Azerbaijan, Abu Dhabi, Iraq, Turkey and Egypt. Apart from its crystal clear upstream strategy created under John Browne’s era, BP”s competitive advantage lay in superlative statecraft and diplomacy which maintained local and regional relationships between the Company and Presidents os each country, including top officials in Washington and Brussels. To a certain extent, BP created the energy policy ‘weather’ adopted at the time and created $billions of value for governments, the company and millions of citizens in the countries involved.
BP’s current strategy abandoned statecraft in favour of a solely technocratic approach which has largely fallen flat on its face. Countries in the region where BP ran its biggest projects may have decided they can’t count on BP other than a contractor. As a result, bilateral pacts have evolved between SOCAR-ADNOC, SOCAR-EGPC, SOCAR-TPAO, TPAO-IRAQ, both upstream, mid-stream and down-stream.
BP is now effectively run by its state oil company partners. All the PR about ‘good relationships’ pumped out by BP is true because BP simply does what its told by state oil companies. Moreover, highly successful ‘localisation’ of BP’s staff means they are understandably more aligned with their home country’s objectives.
These cash-rich state companies are have a greater interest in controlling their own destinies than shareholder ‘activists’, but working in concert behind the scenes they might be more likely to prosper from a takeover and break-up.