The circumstances surrounding the removal of British Petroleum (BP) chairman Albert Manifold after less than a year in the role—reportedly “without warning and without explanation”—provide a fascinating glimpse into the often opaque dynamics of large corporate governance structures.
Various reports suggest that Manifold clashed with non-executive director Simon Henry. According to these accounts, concerns were raised that Henry had exceeded the scope of his authority and had excluded other board members from key communications.
It is noteworthy how corporate leadership networks in Western Europe frequently recycle senior executives among competing firms. Henry left Shell in 2017 after a 35-year career with the company. In December 2016, he sold approximately 50,000 Shell shares, reportedly realizing more than £1 million (around US$1.2 million at the time).
Henry’s departure from Shell occurred during the aftermath of another major corruption controversy involving the US$1.3 billion acquisition of Nigerian oil block OPL 245 by Shell and Eni. The transaction involved Malabu Oil & Gas, a company secretly established by former Nigerian Petroleum Minister Dan Etete to obtain rights to the valuable oil block. Despite the controversy, Henry received a substantial “loss of office” compensation package of approximately €2.5 million upon retirement.
A telephone conversation between Simon Henry and then-Shell CEO Ben van Beurden, disclosed in 2016 following a Dutch police raid on Royal Dutch Shell’s headquarters in The Hague, reportedly suggested that senior Shell executives were aware that proceeds from the OPL 245 transaction would ultimately benefit Etete through Malabu Oil & Gas.
Henry’s transition back into senior corporate roles was remarkably swift. Shortly after leaving Shell, he secured non-executive positions at Rio Tinto Plc and Harbour Energy Plc. He left Shell at the end of June and commenced his role at Rio Tinto the following month.
Interestingly, only six months into his tenure as BP chairman, Albert Manifold wrote in his chairman’s letter: “I would like to take this opportunity to thank Simon for his contributions to the board over the past months.” In March 2026, Manifold announced that Henry would depart BP following the Annual General Meeting in April.
Two months later, Manifold himself departed the company. For an executive whose career had largely been outside the traditional oil and gas sector, the episode raises questions about the internal dynamics of one of the world’s largest energy corporations.
Several broader observations emerge. First, BP appointed a retired multimillionaire who had spent nearly four decades working for one of its principal domestic competitors. Despite his non-executive remuneration being relatively modest compared with his accumulated wealth and investment income, expectations of institutional loyalty and alignment remained significant.
Second, reports and rumors surrounding boardroom conduct suggest that interpersonal conflicts among senior executives can sometimes resemble the factional behavior more commonly associated with secondary-school environments. Yet such disputes often occur with limited public accountability.
A comparable pattern can be observed in geopolitical affairs. During the brutal war involving the United States, Israel, and the UAE against Iran, Qatar publicly expressed concerns about potential damage to its energy infrastructure. However, reports by The Washington Post suggested that Qatari officials simultaneously maintained communications with Iranian counterparts in an effort to avoid attacks on Qatari energy facilities. According to the report, Qatar’s message was effectively: “You will achieve your objectives without striking us.”
Subsequently, speculation emerged that Qatar may have exaggerated or overstated damage to facilities at Ras Laffan as justification for temporary operational disruptions. Qatar’s Government Communications Office rejected such allegations, describing them as “baseless.”
These developments fueled rumors among some expatriate workers that annual bonuses and salary reviews could be suspended for one or more years. At the same time, reports circulated that the Qatari government had funded travel packages for approximately 1,000 (Qatari citizens only) supporters attending the FIFA World Cup, with accommodations at luxury hotels such as the Fairmont and JW Marriott Marquis. The selection process was described by critics as highly opaque, with allegations that many participants had connections to influential circles close to the ruling establishment.
The contrast between fiscal restraint for employees and lavish spending on prestige projects has generated criticism in some quarters. Such perceptions were further amplified by the team’s disappointing sporting performance, culminating in a heavily publicized 6–0 defeat to Canada.
