Barclays reins in oil and gas funding in victory for net zero activists
February 11, 2024
By Paul Homewood
h/t Ian Magness
Shame on Barclays for giving into blackmail:
Barclays is to stop directly financing new oil and gas projects after bowing to pressure from net zero activists.
The lender – which also separately announced a £600m takeover of rival Tesco Bank – has pledged to crack down on clients who pursue any new oil and gas-only strategies without also developing green alternatives. It will stop offering project finance or other direct finance to oil and gas expansion.
Comment of the day:
51 Comments
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
In answer to the questions posed by Jenny Docherty
1 They don’t care
2 The more the better
‘Because they’re clueless fools’ – not to mention being clueless about fuels.
“…crack down on clients who pursue any new oil and gas-only strategies without also developing green alternatives”
At least they’ve left the door slightly ajar for rowing back.
Barclays may understand a smidgen about banking but they nothing about Net Zero and its futility.
If markets could be controlled by government diktat – in the long term – the stock market would become redundant. Just how many government ideas become market-leaders???
I bank with Tesco. Looks like I’ll have to shift my account.
Can anyone recommend a bank which treats its customers well and doesn’t do green virtue signalling?
A short list, I guess
Thats Barclays added to NatWest on my blacklist of Banks never to do business with.
We moved from HSBC to Nationwide back in 2016 and have never regretted it.
I am happy with the quality of the customer care I receive from the Nationwide.
It is my understanding that Barclays is a very bad bank, and not one you should have an account with. This latest move by Barclays just reinforces it. I have an investment account with Tesco bank, which I will now close.
Those of us who are ex-pats were de-banked by Barclays two years ago if we could not give a UK address.
Load of shysters.
Ditto, but I run an overdraft.
This may not mean exactly what it appears to say. Barclays has a very large international investment bank – formerly Barclays Capital, now part of Barclays International. It would be terminally stupid for Barclays International to refuse to have any dealings with the oil & gas sector since that would automatically exclude it from operating in large parts of the world. In addition, Qatar still owns over 3% of the Barclays holding company and is the 4th largest shareholder.
It is likely that Barclays is desperately trying to wriggle between a small group of shareholder activists and the reality that a serious international investment bank cannot pretend that oil & gas doesn’t exist. It is also a sign of the contraction of domestic UK banks to focus on protecting their domestic oligopoly. [Fundamentally they are turning themselves into building societies focusing on cash management with property and asset-backed lending.] There have been questions about the future of Barclays International for some time with analysts arguing that it doesn’t earn an adequate risk-adjusted return on equity.
The logic of this announcement is that some or all of Barclays International will sooner or later be sold to a buyer wanting to expand its international interests – perhaps an ambitious bank based in the Middle East or Asia. If that happens, the announcement is pure virtue-signalling. If that does not happen, then it is just a sign that Barclays International is likely to be drastically cut back in scale and balance sheet. It is a symptom of the overall decline of London as a financial centre and the UK as an economy.
The devil is in the detail. Here we have Barkinglays effectively blackmailing O&G companies to put oxygen into the pointless wind and solar industry if they want funding. This is how the mafia behave…It is a protection racket for the pointless Weeenewbuwls industry which is a product of the leftie politics which adopted it. It is uneconomic and to use a much abused word, is UNsustainable without subsidies and “forced” subsidies. Without them it would die a very quick death because it’s existence is forced.
Yes, but … The ability of genuinely international banks to browbeat large operators in the rest of the world is quite limited. HSBC is another company that has announced a similar policy. But does anyone believe that they would refuse if PetroChina came to them wanting finance for a gas project? It would be incredibly stupid of HSBC management to potentially anger the Chinese government in that way.
This is really the core of the issue. Banks focused on domestic markets in the UK and Europe can afford to virtue signal in an attempt to keep portions of their customer base happy. However, do banks with large international operations want to infuriate Saudi Aramco or any number of other state-owned oil & gas companies. Even in the US a bank may find that the state of Texas comes after you.
That is why I doubt that Barclays Bank International can survive in its present form for long if this policy really means what it seems to say. Most of the world outside the UK and Europe is uninterested in NetZero posturing. It will simply ignore banks (or other companies) which are more concerned with domestic audiences in the UK and Europe than in doing business with the segment of the world economy which is growing far more rapidly. In the past you could pretend to be a local bank wherever you were, but now activists (of different kinds) will come after you if you try to ride too many horses. Even if you don’t want it, polarisation in the form of spin-offs may be the only viable choice.
The alternative is to recover some level of corporate courage and independence, but that seems unlikely for companies based in the UK and Europe. The same is true for large oil & gas companies. How long will it be before Shell or BP face the choice of moving their corporate bases to Singapore, Dubai or the US?
We need grownups in charge; not ‘clueless idiots’.
When the “Government-in-waiting” has promised to hit the Oil and Gas sector with even more punitive taxes, the investment becomes less profitable. Hail the nut jobs. All power supplies will be net Zero by 2030 OMG
OK then . we are now at 2030. Thanks to the vigorous leadership of Herr Starmer there are no coal, gas or nuclear power stations left . The flickering electricity supply , linked with skyhigh prices has closed most shops, pubs, coffee houses, small businesses, but thankfully members of the CCC are incredibly rich from undisclosed subsidy troughing.
However China is still building coal power staions , CO2 globally rising at 2ppm/year , sea levels are increasing at 2.5mm/year , there are occasional 80mph gusts on the top of Scafell , some days it is the “coldest evah” , followed a week later by the “hottest evah” and parts of Suffolk are still falling int the sea.
So what do we do next?
Invade Monaco!
“All power supplies will be net Zero by 2030.”
Surely you mean,
“All power supplies will be at Zero by 2030.” ?
The other banks will be glad – pricing will be higher so they will make more money. I have a Tesco credit card which I will gladly ditch if Barclays takes over.
Remember this from last year…..
Seven climate change activists who were found guilty of causing more than £100,000 of damage by smashing windows at the headquarters of Barclays Bankwere spared jail by a judge.
Zoe Cohen, 52, Carol Wood, 53, Sophie Cowen, 31, Lucy Porter, 48, Gabriella Ditton, 28, Rosemary Webster, 64, and another protester, who cannot be named for legal reasons, were charged with criminal damage and pleaded not guilty.
They were convicted and given suspended sentences on Friday.
The women had used chisels and hammers to break glass panels on the exterior of the building in Canary Wharf in London on 7 April 2021, Southwark crown court heard.
They wore patches that read “better broken windows than broken promises” as they placed stickers stating “in case of climate emergency break glass” on the windows of the bank.
The judge did not order them to pay Barclay’s repair costs or court costs.
Barclay’s need to get some balls and sue them for costs rather than pull out of oil and gas.
Exactly. This decision by the judge was scandalous and even more reason why Barclays should not have given in to them.
Now I’m not trying to be funny or anything but they’re all wimmin.
A lot of the worst ones are, maybe because they fall for the soppy stuff more easily.
“…fall for the soppy stuff…”
Just, “fall for stuff.” The idea that women have a special radar called “woman’s intuition” is something made up to humour them; as, above all, they do not like to be contradicted. Men (sometimes) will say, “I am wrong.” In all honesty, in a long life, I have NEVER heard a woman say it. I have occasionally heard some sort of weird hissing and choking sound which might be interpreted as such.
That didn’t stop police arresting a woman for ‘praying silently’ near an abortion clinic.
Texas has barred some state entities, including pensions, from investing in roughly 350 funds run by asset managers such as BlackRock for the ESG policies. Any agency or person objecting to Barclays policy should do the same. Bye-bye!
Barclays as a private company have the right to decide policies that impact on their shareholders – did they ask the shareholders if this policy change was acceptable- did they explain the financial benefits that would accrue- if any, or did they just decide that having the names, addresses and photos of board members spread over the sordid pit known as “social media” was too high a price to pay and if shareholders did not like it, then sell the shares and move on. Barclays have given in to what is also known as blackmail, and by caving in have shown the “activist” that they can get whatever they want with no risk to themselves- Barclays Bank has a greater duty to shareholders than caving in to “Green zealots”, put this surrender to the shareholders and ask them to vote on the path of travel – without doubt the World will need fossil fuels if it wishes to have an industrial base, if the drive is to an Agrarian society then so be it and drop all fossil fuel investments but at least have a vote to see how many shareholders agree with the destructive changes that fossil fuel elimination will bring. Absolute Poverty has been extinguished because the Industrial Age arrived, accept the fact that within this system there are winners and losers, but also accept that the losers are still light years ahead of their predecessors, what the Green Climate Emergency/Crisis mob seek is a return to an agrarian society, subsistence famine strewn life with regular famine events while “Mother Earth” recovers – it is a death sentence for at least six billion people. Barclays should show resistance to the flak they have taken and do the right thing, invest £10 in fossil fuel development for every £1 in “Green” tech, I know which will stand the test of investment. Barclays are also under attack regarding Gaza and the Palestinian cause, if they give in on this, then they will give in on any cause that is current flavour of the month. Stand firm.
As major banks retreat from funding fossil fuel activities, it should represent a huge opportunity for Private Equity, not answerable to shareholders, to fill the void. I look forward to having the chance to invest in such funds whilst capital is artificially constrained from flowing into O&G ventures.
I am sure banks in China, Hong Kong and the Middle East will provide funding in place of minnows like Barclays.
Regrettably, HSBC has already announced it won’t fund new O&G developments
Looney at BP has left as has BP’s over zealous NetZero activity. It seems that there is another Looney at Barclays.
Apologies – I’m a slow reader but yesterday’s Charles Moore/DTel post has gone missing – more AGW gremlins ?.
“Labour’s green U-turn reflects the shifting sands of climate policy”
This one? Still there just now but don’t know about comments.
It’s private, now. I tried to reply to Phoenix’ comment, but it told me it was private and I couldn’t comment.’
Hi GC, a zillion miles off topic but…As I am getting on a bit and have never witnessed a total solar eclipse, I am considering a trip to the US for the April 18 event. Any ideas which part of the track has the most reliably clear weather for that time of year?https://preventblindness.org/solar-eclipses/april-8-2024-great-north-american-eclipse-total-solar-eclipse/
Oh and are you planning to travel to see it?
‘Evening Mr Sanders, your reply to GC somehow entered my “IN” tray – don’t know how, why etc. I don’t know the best US place to view but having seen totality (100 % eclipse) in S Devon/ Cornwall some 12-15 ?? yrs ago I would definitely go for totality – it was amazing !!. If in a hilly area you can see the “night” & following “day” rolling towards you over the distant hill tops.
Al di la di questo anch’io sono partzialmente italiano. circa 25%, grazie a la mia nonna. Buona notte.
Oops April 8th – told you as I was getting on – probably would have turned up 10 days late!
I would head to Texas. Uvalde. Eagle Pass, if you are bold. US/Mexican border can be exciting.
I should think deserts in Mexico would be best, but SW Texas is semi-arid, so I assume it will be best in US. All areas NE of Texas are subject to spring storms. Unfortunately, Texas is also subject to spring storms. Big ones. So no guarantees. SW Texas would be catching it earliest in the day, before storms pop up.
I saw an 85% eclipse a few years ago. Yes, it was an incredible experience.
What completely and delightfully surprised me was crescents under trees. The crescent sunlight going through pinholes in the trees produces crescents on the ground. Completely unexpected.
Thanks GC. All I get is “Error 414”. Regards.
Regarding the April 8th solar thing:
Try sites such as:
https://www.astronomy.com/observing/20-of-the-best-places-to-view-the-2024-great-north-american-eclipse/
and look by place; such as …
Apr 8, 2024 – Total Solar Eclipse in New Brunswick, Canada (timeanddate.com)
https://wordpress.com/read/blogs/27436983/posts/71708#comment-276812
Private post
This post exists, but you don’t have permission to read it.
If it’s a post on a private site, you need be a member of the site to view the post.
=================================
Note that this appears to be from wordpress, and not
notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress
Thanks again GC for your note re: private site, hence no unregistered access.
As John Hultquist noted earlier, in the USA legal and moral issue have prevented the rise of ESG. We copied the USA in entertaining this madness: surely we can follow again in ditching ESG. Possible, we could have the “Farage Act” to stop banks from playing at moralists?
I agree with the people who advocate Nationwide: been there for years with great service.
John talks about Texas, not entirety of the country. My state, South Carolina, has also banned ESG from consideration for state funds, such as pension funds. I imagine there are pinko communist states that still allow squandering people’s money.
I have been with Nationwide for years as well with no complaints.
I have a Barclaycard and a finance account via Amazon that allows spreading the cost of purchases over months interest free. Because my Barclaycard account is my oldest apparently I would lose credit score points by closing it. And in the wacky world of credit scores, closing it and reducing my available credit would also reduce my score even though it would reduce the chance to get into more debt – go figure. But I have not actually used my Barclaycard for years.
Aviva under Amanda Blanc are just as bad and probably a poor bet for investment or pensions.
Not necessarily if you are able to choose where your funds are invested. I had an Aviva pension and was able to choose which funds it was invested in. Same with investment funds, they must produce statements about their investment aims so you can make a choice. The cases of investment of state funds in the US and pensions money in Australia are different as it seems that people have no say as to what sectors their money is invested in. However, it is a general rule that the investment is done to get the best return for people and not carry out virtue-signalling.
As for how shareholders can act to control their companies, one way would be to have a motion put on the agenda for a vote at the AGM. I presume there are hurdles to doing this such as requiring a level of support to even get it on the agenda. Individual shareholders are usually vastly outnumbered by fund holdings who tend to hold a groupthink view. I am considering voting against Blanc following her making a bullshit statement about Net Zero and it comes as no surprise to learn she drives a Tesla.
“Bank of America appears to renege on pledge to not finance new coal projects” This was headline on a blog I follow (Badlands Media). I replied: On July 28 2022, West Virginia State Treasurer Riley Moore announced he has formed a 15-state coalition of state financial officers who have committed to scrutinize or potentially curtail future business with banks that adopt corporate policies to cut off financing for the coal, oil and natural gas industries. Together, the coalition represents more than $600 billion in public assets under management and will begin considering whether financial institutions are engaged in boycotts of America’s traditional energy industries when awarding state banking contracts. “I’m proud to continue to stand with my colleagues against these attacks on our states’ coal, oil and natural gas industries.”
Treasurer Moore said. “These industries – which are engaged in perfectly legal activities – provide jobs, paychecks and benefits to thousands of hard-working families in our states and we will not stand idly by and allow our peoples’ livelihoods to be destroyed to advance a radical social agenda.” Seems as though it is working. At least one other bank has already caved.
Ah Barclays, that bastion of debanking and taxpayer bail out due to its casino banking splurge – perhaps they should remain committed to the day job, instead of more virtue signalling – the taxpayers who bailed them do not, in majority, support this greenfoolery