News

BP has tapped Woodside Energy’s Meg O’Neill as its next CEO, its first external hire for the post in more than a century and the first woman to lead a top-five oil major as the firm pivots back to fossil fuels.

O’Neill, an Exxon veteran, will take over in April following the abrupt departure of Murray Auchincloss, the second CEO change in just over two years as the British oil major strives to improve its profitability and share performance, which for years has lagged competitors like Exxon.

The company embarked on a major strategy shift earlier this year, slashing billions in planned renewable energy initiatives and shifting its focus back to traditional oil and gas. BP has pledged to divest $20bn in assets by 2027, including its Castrol lubricants unit, and reduce debt and costs.

“Progress has been made in recent years, but increased rigour and diligence are required to make the necessary transformative changes to maximise value for our shareholders,” new BP Chair Albert Manifold said in a statement.

When Manifold took up his post in October, he emphasised the need for a deeper reshaping of BP’s portfolio to increase profitability and faced pressure from activist investor Elliott Investment Management, one of BP’s largest shareholders, which called for him to urgently address the company’s shortcomings.

Elliott saw the change of CEO as a sign of BP’s willingness to act swiftly to deliver cost cuts and divestments, a person familiar with the situation said.

An external change

O’Neill, a 55-year-old American from Boulder, Colorado, and the first openly gay woman to helm a FTSE 100 company, headed Woodside since 2021, having previously spent 23 years at Exxon.

Under O’Neill’s leadership, Woodside merged with BHP Group’s petroleum arm to create a top 10 global independent oil and gas producer valued at $40bn and doubled Woodside’s oil and gas production.

The acquisition took the company to the US, where it embarked on a major Louisiana liquefied natural gas project, which it is progressing in an LNG market braced for oversupply.

BP spent more than 40 percent of its $16.2bn investment budget in the United States last year and plans to boost its US output to 1 million barrels of oil equivalent per day by the end of the decade.

Markets react

Woodside shares fell as much as 2.9 percent after news of O’Neill’s departure. At BP, shares were up 0.3 percent, compared with a broader index of European energy companies.

Like BP, Woodside shares have underperformed rivals. In absolute terms, though, the stock has risen about 10 percent during O’Neill’s tenure.

BP’s executive vice president, Carol Howle, will serve as interim CEO. Auchincloss, 55, will step down on Thursday and serve in an advisory role until December 2026.

BP said O’Neill’s appointment was part of its long-term succession planning, though it had not publicly announced a search process.

Auchincloss became CEO in 2024, taking over from Bernard Looney, who was fired after lying to the board about personal relationships with colleagues.

After an ill-fated foray into renewables under Looney, BP has promised to increase profitability and cut costs while re-routing spending to focus on oil and gas, launching a review in August of how best to develop and monetise oil and gas production assets.

During BP’s third-quarter earnings call last month, the company did not give an update on the closely watched sale process for its Castrol lubricants unit, the centrepiece of its $20bn asset-sale drive to slash its debt pile.

“We question whether this is set to change BP’s thinking once again on key strategic initiatives – should they defer the sale of Castrol? We think yes. Should they cut the buyback to zero and repair the balance sheet further? We think yes,” said RBC analyst Biraj Borkhataria.

There were chaotic scenes in Albania’s parliament where a vote for the country’s next human rights ombudsman descended into a protest by opposition politicians over alleged election fraud and corruption.

Washington, DC – In response to a recent decision that prevented Israel from attempting to stop a Gaza war crimes investigation, the United States has instituted a new round of sanctions against staff members at the International Criminal Court.

Two judges, Gocha Lordkipanidze of Georgia and Erdenebalsuren Damdin of Mongolia, are the subject of Thursday’s sanctions.

Without Israel’s permission, the judges “have directly engaged in efforts by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute Israeli nationals,” according to US Secretary of State Rubio in a statement.

Lordkipanidze and Damdin were also criticized for “voting with the majority” on December 15 when the ICC rejected Israel’s request to put a stop to the war crimes investigation.

Israel’s allies have continued to provide the US with billions in military and economic aid in support of its genocidal war in Gaza.

Rubio said in the statement that “the ICC has continued to conduct politicized actions against Israel, which have created a risky precedent for all countries.”

The administration of US President Donald Trump has placed a number of economic restrictions on ICC members and their associates, just the latest of a long line.

Critics warn that such actions could stifle international investigations and have a wide-ranging impact on witnesses, judges, and prosecutors.

For instance, the Trump administration imposed broad sanctions against ICC staff and anyone who assists the court’s investigations against the US and its allies in February.

Judges and prosecutors were subject to individual sanctions by the Trump White House, which it continued to support.

Four judges received sanctions in June, two of whom participated in investigations involving US personnel in Afghanistan. Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, and Yoav Gallant, his former defense minister, were the subjects of the arrest warrants that were issued.

The US then took action against two more judges and two ICC prosecutors in August, extending the sanctions.

Due to their participation in the ICC investigations, even organizations outside the ICC have been subject to economic sanctions.

Al Haq, the Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights will also face sanctions for aiding the ICC in “investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute Israeli nationals,” according to Rubio in September.

The court referred to the most recent US actions as a “flagrant attack against the independence of an impartial judicial institution” in a statement released on Thursday. Despite US pressure, it still pledged to carry out its mandate.

The international legal order itself is in danger when judicial actors are threatened with doing so, it said.

The ICC’s decision to issue arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant for alleged war crimes in Gaza was partially sparked by the sanctions.

Additionally, several Hamas leaders were wanted for arrest after being killed in Israeli operations.

The Trump administration has also pressed the Supreme Court to formally dismiss an investigation into US forces’ actions during their two-decade deployment in Afghanistan.

The Trump administration contends that the ICC has overstepped its purview by investigating US and Israeli citizens because Israel and the US are not members.

Rubio stated on Thursday, “We will not tolerate ICC abuses of power that wrongly subject US and Israeli citizens to the ICC’s jurisdiction,” in line with Rubio’s statement.

However, the court has argued that it has the authority to look into allegations that two nations, including the occupied Palestinian territories, abused the people in their own countries.

Rubio is “coddling Israeli war criminals,” according to Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of the human rights organization Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN).

She further stated that the court should “not wait to prosecute him for bringing a case against him for breaking the law.”

Israeli authorities have praised the Trump administration’s sanctions in recent days. Since October 7, 2023, when a Hamas-led attack on southern Israel claimed the lives of 1, 139 people, Israel has killed at least 171, 152 Palestinians in its conflict there.

Beirut, Lebanon – A crucial meeting bringing together Israeli and Lebanese representatives, among others, is scheduled to take place on Friday, with the potential relaunch of an expanded Israeli war on Lebanon hanging over the gathering.

The meeting in the southern Lebanese town of Naqoura is the second to include civilian representatives from Lebanon and Israel, after the first took place on December 3, amid Israeli attacks. The meetings are ostensibly to monitor the implementation of the ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah last year, despite the fact that Israel has violated the agreement on a regular basis.

Since October 8, 2023, Israel has killed more than 4,000 people in Lebanon after its war with the Lebanese group began. A ceasefire was agreed on November 27, 2024, but since then, Israel has killed more than 300 people, including at least 127 civilians, according to the United Nations. The talks come as Israel continues to attack Lebanon on a near-daily basis and threatens to expand its war on the country.

Here’s everything you need to know about the talks.

Who is meeting?

A special committee of representatives from the United States, France, Israel, Lebanon, and the UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, which is based in Naqoura.

The committee is chaired by a US general and was originally composed of military officials. But due to Israeli pressure, Lebanon’s President Joseph Aoun appointed Simon Karam, a Lebanese diplomat, to participate earlier this month.

Israel reportedly wants the inclusion of civilians to discuss nonmilitary issues, such as plans for potential economic cooperation.

Israel also appointed a civilian representative from its National Security Council, Uri Resnick, and the meeting was also attended by US Special Representative for Lebanon Morgan Ortagus.

What is the goal?

The committee’s plan of action is to monitor the ceasefire agreed last year.

The terms of the ceasefire were left relatively undefined, but it was widely assumed that attacks from both sides would cease, the Lebanese army would disarm Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, and that Israel would withdraw its troops from its northern neighbour.

Officials say Lebanon has largely met its side of the bargain. Speaking at a conference in Beirut on Wednesday, Deputy Prime Minister Tarek Mitri said the army’s task of disarming Hezbollah below the Litani River, which runs across southern Lebanon, was nearly completed, apart from the places where Israel still occupies Lebanese land.

However, Israel has violated the ceasefire repeatedly and continues to occupy five locations in southern Lebanon.

“The main task of the mechanism is to oversee and verify and do everything possible to respect the agreement,” Mitri said.

Lebanon has been “strictly observing” the ceasefire agreement since day one, but that is not the case for Israel, he added.

What was the outcome of the last meeting?

The members of the so-called mechanism met in Naqoura, south Lebanon, on December 3. The meeting was reportedly positive.

The inclusion of civilians “reflects the Mechanism’s commitment to facilitating political and military discussions with the aim of achieving security, stability, and a durable peace for all communities affected by the conflict”, the US embassy said in a statement about the meeting

The office of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu released a statement that emphasised potential future economic agreement between his country and Lebanon. However, analysts believe that is a far-fetched proposition considering Israel is still occupying territory in southern Lebanon, and more than 88,000 Lebanese are still displaced from their homes in the region.

Despite the alleged positivity of the meeting, Israel attacked Lebanon the very next day.

Is normalisation on the agenda?

From the Lebanese side, no. Normalising relations with Israel after a war that killed thousands, including many civilians, would anger a large segment of the population.

But there has been US and Israeli pressure to find a peace agreement and to move towards normalisation.

The mechanism meeting is also a place for other bilateral discussions between Israel and Lebanon, which do not have direct relations.

On the Lebanese side, border delineation is a priority. On the Israeli side, a US-backed economic zone is high on the agenda.

So if Israel is unhappy with the talks, will it launch a war?

That is still unclear.

Israel has claimed Hezbollah is rearming, though analysts say the group is not an existential threat to Israel. The group, long the political and military hegemon in Lebanon, was badly weakened during last year’s war with Israel. Much of its senior military leadership was assassinated, including its longtime leader Hassan Nasrallah.

With Hezbollah weakened, some analysts believe Israel’s decision will be based on internal Israeli politics and dependent on international pressure on Israel.

Officials from the US, Saudi Arabia, and France met the head of the Lebanese army in Paris on Thursday in an effort to coordinate positions and possibly avoid an Israeli intensification in Lebanon. They also agreed to document the Lebanese military’s efforts to disarm Hezbollah, according to the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Where is Hezbollah in all of this?

Publicly, it has refused the Lebanese government’s plans for full disarmament.

The group says Israel’s behaviour – continuing to attack and occupy Lebanese territory – justifies its position.

But how it will respond should the ceasefire move forward is yet to be seen. In the proposed second phase, the Lebanese army would start to dismantle Hezbollah’s infrastructure between the Litani and Awali Rivers – the area between Sidon in the south, and Beirut, roughly in the middle of Lebanon.