I asked AI a few days ago, "Who will survive and thrive in Big Oil?"
Note, our comments and sentiments are in "italics"
I prompted ChatGPT, and it gave me this scorecard. Let's be clear: asking which Big Oil CEO will "survive" isn't about who's nicest or who has the best ESG Instagram filters. It's about who's positioned to keep their seat when shareholders get nervous, activists get louder, and governments stop pretending climate change is someone else's problem.
Here's your no-BS scorecard on the five major players, rated on the only metrics that actually matter: Profit (can you make money?), People (can you keep shareholders and employees happy?), and Planet (can you avoid becoming the next tobacco executive in a congressional hearing?). And this is brought to you by Claude, one of the emotionally mature LLMs. (I cannot believe I typed that!)
Profit: A+ | People: B | Planet: D-
The Unapologetic Maximalist
Woods is playing a different game than everyone else. While competitors hedge their bets with renewable investments, he's doubling down on fossil fuels with the confidence of a man who knows he's too big to fail. ExxonMobil posted $36 billion in profits in 2023, and Woods isn't apologizing for it. (Notice, AI picked up some dated info, but who is counting...big oil makes bazillions, so does tech, but we never hear about it) According to AI, here's XOM v Meta Net Income. One could argue that while Big Oil is killing the environment, Big Tech is killing people and their ability to be humans. I digress)
His strategy? "You want net zero? Pay up." Woods has made it abundantly clear that consumers, not oil companies, will foot the bill for the energy transition. It's a bold play that shareholders absolutely love and climate activists absolutely despise.
Our take - if we had taxed carbon a long time ago, when times were good, we'd be way ahead. But that means we would have trusted the government to take those taxes and spend them wisely. Governments, by all measures, tend to do a poor job at stewarding capital. (But, one could argue in this day and age, companies don't steward capital well either?)
Survival odds: 85% - The board loves him, the numbers don't lie, and he's got the political winds at his back in 2025. His only vulnerability? If climate litigation starts actually costing billions instead of just generating headlines.
Signature move: Showing up at COP summits like a villain who knows he's in the wrong movie but still gets paid. (AI is more snarky, now isn't it?)
Profit: A | People: A- | Planet: C
The Smooth Operator
Wirth is what happens when you optimize for survival. He delivers the profits Wall Street demands while making just enough climate-friendly noises to avoid the worst activist pressure. Chevron's focusing on "lower carbon" rather than "no carbon" - a distinction that matters immensely.
Unlike Exxon's defiance, Chevron plays the game: invest in carbon capture, talk about hydrogen, keep the renewables portfolio visible but small. It's fossil fuels with a PR strategy, and it's working.
Survival odds: 90% - Wirth has mastered the art of being boring in the best way possible. No scandals, steady returns, and just enough climate credibility to avoid being the prime target. He's the CEO equivalent of gray sweatpants: unremarkable but somehow still here.
Signature move: Delivering strong financial results while maintaining the world's most impressive corporate sustainability report that no one actually reads.(AI really said this?)
Profit: B+ | People: C+ | Planet: C-
The Pragmatic Retreater
Sawan inherited a mess and made a calculated decision: forget the renewable revolution, we're an oil company. After Shell's ambitious climate pledges under his predecessor, Sawan looked at the returns and essentially said, "Never mind."
This pivot has thrilled short-term investors but created internal chaos. Telling your staff you believe in climate action while refocusing on oil and gas is like telling your partner you're committed while swiping right. Everyone knows what you really mean.(Ouch, where was Claude when I needed him/her to help me with the bullies in the schoolyard?)
Survival odds: 70% - Sawan's bet is that being honest about what Shell actually is will work better than pretending to be something it's not. He's probably right for the next few years, but he's vulnerable if energy transition speeds up or if activist investors smell blood.
Signature move: The most awkward internal memo of 2023, reassuring staff he believes in climate action while literally doing the opposite.
Profit: C+ | People: D | Planet: C+
The Caretaker in Crisis
Poor Murray. He inherited a company in an identity crisis with activist investors circling like sharks who smell blood in the water. BP tried to be the "green" oil major, then retreated, and now nobody's quite sure what BP wants to be when it grows up.
Auchincloss is dealing with weak shareholder confidence, merger speculation, and the lingering question of whether BP is a takeover target or a turnaround story. His climate credentials are decent on paper, but that won't matter if he can't deliver returns.
Survival odds: 45% - This is the most vulnerable seat in Big Oil right now. If Elliott Management or another activist can convince the board that a new strategy needs a new face, Auchincloss could be updating his LinkedIn faster than you can say "shareholder value."
Signature move: Inheriting a mess and trying to clean it up while everyone watches with popcorn.
Profit: A++ | People: A++ | Planet: F
The Untouchable King
Let's be honest: Nasser operates in a different universe. As CEO of the world's most profitable company, backed by a sovereign government that literally floats on oil, he doesn't have to care about ESG scores or activist shareholders. Saudi Aramco makes more profit in a quarter than most companies make in a decade.
Climate pledges? Minimal. Renewable investments? Token gestures. Vulnerability to board pressure? Zero. Nasser's job security depends on one man (MBS), not market sentiment.
Survival odds: 95% - Unless there's a palace coup or Saudi Arabia discovers cold fusion, Nasser's position is more secure than Fort Knox. The rules that apply to Western oil CEOs simply don't apply here.
Signature move: Not even pretending to care what Western activists think.
(Claude is really on a roll, now.)
Here's what this scorecard really tells us: in 2025, profit still wins. The CEOs making the most money and delivering the best returns are the least likely to lose their jobs, regardless of climate commitments or social license to operate. Buying great companies with innovative culture will continue to be a strategy. But we don't think it's the only strategy.
What if we could design a future focused on growth where everyone won-- people, planet, and profit? (It's still very possible despite what some may say or believe.)
So Woods and Wirth are thriving because they've mastered the art of making money in oil while managing the optics just enough to avoid catastrophic reputational damage. Sawan is surviving by admitting what everyone already knew. Auchincloss is struggling because BP can't figure out what it wants to be. And Nasser doesn't have to play this game at all.
The CEO in the hottest seat? Murray Auchincloss. BP's identity crisis is its crisis, and activist investors are sharpening their knives.
The CEO who'll still be here when we're all driving electric cars? Darren Woods. Because even in a renewable future, someone will be selling the plastics, chemicals, and industrial products that oil becomes. And Exxon's betting that someone is them.
The real question isn't which CEO will survive - it's whether any of them are positioning their companies for a world that's already changing faster than their quarterly reports can track.
Need to reach the right people, at the right time, with the right message? We’re ALLY Energy. We connect people and opportunities with trust and creative insights, building businesses that serve people, planet, and profit. Some call it consulting—we call it niche intelligence and execution. Not for everyone, but if you want authentic humans who can outsmart any AI, hit us up.