INVESTORS in BP are having to get used to Hayward-o-grams. Tony Hayward, the new chief executive of the oil group, sent shockwaves through the FTSE’s largest company this week by suggesting that upcoming financial results would be “dreadful.”

It is reminiscent of his comments last December when, just before the unedifying and sudden departure of his predecessor, Mr Hayward appeared to criticise the BP leadership style. It is only fair to point out that Mr Hayward tried to squash the presumption that he was criticising Lord Browne of Madingley, who was then his boss, personally. It is also important to place his “dreadful” comment in context. Mr Hayward is surely aware of his obligation to make share price-sensitive forecasts available to all investors simultaneously. Some observers will believe that the comment represents a damning indictment of BP’s financial and operational prospects. But it may have been little more than a throwaway line, a general expression of concern rather than a particular prediction.

One way or another, however, this new Hayward-o-gram provides a timely reason to revisit BP’s investment judgment. It had gone rather quiet. Admittedly, the global credit crunch consumed attention over the summer. But given the tumult that engulfed BP late last year and early this year, the calm was more eerie than contented. Not only was the BP board stretched to breaking point, but the company also had deep operational problems to contend with. An explosion at its Texas City refinery in 2005 killed 15 and injured 170. Corrosion of Alaskan pipelines raised the spectre of environmental disaster – and an expensive round of repairs. Investigations conducted by the US Congress raised the danger of sanctions against the company and searching questions have been asked about its Russian ambitions – especially in light of some increasingly muscular, nationalistic, Moscow politics.

The price of oil adds to the intrigue. Four years ago you could buy a barrel of the black stuff for $25. It trebled in price in the next 36 months, then fell from $75 to $50, only to climb above $80 this year. Oil price volatility is a headache because it makes BP’s exploration investment decisions more risky. But by and large the upwardly mobile oil price has helped, and masked, BP’s disconcerting company-specific problems.

Mr Hayward clearly intends to tackle BP’s internal issues, and that creates room for optimists. Yes, it is discouraging to hear him suggest that BP is “dreadful”, but it comes as part of an effort to get BP troops to pull their socks up. The company, run autocratically by Lord Browne, may now be more embracing and inclusive, but will it do any good? Up to a point, all that matters is that BP is changing. The process, if it is liberating and rejuvenating, may be more important than the objectives – such as cutting out four layers of management and reducing them to seven.

That said, anything Mr Hayward does to raise internal operating standards may be of secondary importance beside oil price conundrums. The critical task for Mr Hayward is to ensure that BP continues to enjoy access to reserves of oil and gas.

Shareholders may like to think that their company owns hydrocarbon. In reality, it possesses no more than the licence to drill. A smooth-running BP is better placed to retain its licences and add more. Refinery accidents and leaky pipelines give governments grounds to stymie the firm. If BP and its ilk are accused of creaming off too much profit, or hindering the development of native oil expertise in emerging states, it could be thwarted.

Investors may need every iota of the 3.7 per cent dividend yield to support continuing faith in BP. Until Mr Hayward shows an ability to turn his acerbic diagnosis of internal ills into robust and long-lasting exploration and production contracts, the stock price may drift. Sell.