Malcolm Moore examines how BP and Shell differ from other oil majors amid record energy prices. Unlike national oil companies such as Saudi Aramco, Adnoc, Petrobras, and Petróleos de Venezuela, which enjoy government backing and clear mandates, BP and Shell operate as political orphans. These national champions extract oil and gas to fund state budgets, facing minimal risk and strong political protection even under climate-focused governments.

France’s Total Energies, Norway’s Equinor, and Italy’s Eni represent another tier: independent yet state-supported entities that benefit from national energy strategies, diplomatic backing, and tailored education systems. In a de-globalizing world, such government ties offer strategic advantages despite potential domestic obligations.

The US supergiants Exxon Mobil and Chevron possess unique structural advantages: vast domestic resources, deep capital markets, and a powerful US brand. In contrast, BP and Shell lack consistent British or Dutch support, leading to volatile strategies. Once central to foreign policy, they now struggle with identity.

Amid public pressure for climate action, both companies pursued aggressive green investments that eroded shareholder value. Now pivoting back to oil and gas, they risk another miscalculation as electricity demand surges and climate expectations intensify. Still, their independence grants them project flexibility unavailable to state-backed peers.