Oil company executives are a particular breed. The role seems to demand a certain cragginess. Tony Hayward, chief executive of BP, neither looks nor sounds like Jock Ewing. This was a handicap in BP’s response to the catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico. He made the initial mistake, which has haunted the company’s response, of assuming the leaking well was an operational matter. If it had been, he would have been the perfect candidate to lead the response. But the Macondo well exposed corporate failure on a scale that would have ended any chief executive’s career. Res ipsa loquitur. It is inevitable that he should take responsibility.

Mr Hayward has many qualities, not least as a builder. Since 2000, variously as treasurer, head of upstream activities and chief executive, he was central to the positioning of BP as a $240bn revenues-a-year behemoth. He was a natural successor to John Browne, when BP needed to become more operationally focused in 2007. He is popular with shareholders and is entitled to his prospective ￡12m pay-off, the majority of which is pension entitlements accumulated during a 28-year career at the company.

In normal circumstances, however, Bob Dudley would surely not be Mr Hayward’s natural successor. He is a year older and joined BP’s main board only last year. His appointment would appear a political move designed to appease Washington. This is not a trivial consideration – securing BP’s American interests will require the toughness Mr Dudley exhibited during the TNK-BP dogfight in Russia. However, as UBS notes, Mr Dudley’s appointment could shift BP’s geopolitical risk from Washington to Moscow. BP is facing colossal long-term problems as a result of the Macondo incident, including almost certainly further management changes. Mr Dudley’s appointment, likely to be confirmed today, would have a distinctly interim air.