Pages tagged "banktrack"


Time for France’s Biggest Bank to Stop Funding Mountaintop Removal Coal

This post is by Ben Collins of RAN and Yann Louvel of BankTrack.

The campaign to stop bank financing of mountaintop removal coal mining is gaining momentum.

For years, RAN and other organizations in the global BankTrack network have urged U.S. and European banks to stop financing the devastation caused by mountaintop removal (MTR) coal mining. BankTrack members have worked closely with advocates from Appalachia — the region hardest hit by MTR — including Paul Corbit Brown and Elise Keaton from Keeper of the Mountains, and Bob Kincaid from Coal River Mountain Watch. Together, they’ve travelled around the U.S. and Europe to speak directly to CEOs and boards of banks at their annual shareholder meetings and urge them to stop bankrolling mountaintop removal coal mining.

This week, we have an opportunity to push France’s biggest bank, Crédit Agricole, to stop profiting from MTR once and for all. At today’s annual shareholder meeting, Paul Corbit Brown and staff from Friends of the Earth France urged the bank’s CEO, Jean-Paul Chifflet, to follow the lead of other banks and stop funding the biggest and most destructive MTR companies.

Take action: Now’s the time to back them up — please add your voice now! GFC_MTR_crop 

Public pressure to stop funding MTR started showing results a few years ago. U.S. banks were the first to react in 2008, adopting a mix of enhanced due diligence procedures and financing thresholds for companies that engage in mountaintop removal. But real change started to happen last year, when Wells Fargo in the U.S., and Crédit Agricole and BNP Paribas in France, adopted new policies on MTR. These covered both direct project financing of MTR projects — which is pretty rare — and, more importantly, general corporate financing of coal mining companies active in MTR.

The implications of these new policies are potentially huge: the biggest and most harmful producers of MTR coal, such as Alpha Natural Resources and Arch Coal, raise their funding from general corporate loans from banks or from bonds or shares issued to investors. And these are precisely the transactions that should be excluded by these new policies, which bar financing for companies that are “significant” producers of MTR coal.

But we’ve learned that different banks define "significant" in wildly different ways. BNP Paribas blacklists the main companies active in MTR production, including Alpha and Arch. But Crédit Agricole — while its policy looks similar to BNP’s on paper — excludes only those coal mining companies that produce more than 20% of their coal from MTR. In practice, they aren’t prohibited from doing business with any MTR companies at all!

Take action: Will you tell Crédit Agricole Jean-Paul Chifflet to close the bank’s huge MTR loophole?

Crédit Agricole has financed several loan and bond deals for Alpha and Arch — the worst of the worst MTR companies — while BNP Paribas hasn’t done any deals with these two companies since last year. Ironically for Crédit Agricole, financing MTR has not only been bad for the environment and human rights — it’s also been a bad investment. The bank suffered significant financial losses from loans it made to recently-bankrupt MTR miner Trinity Coal.

In contrast to Crédit Agricole, other U.S. and European banks have taken concrete steps away from MTR financing this spring. Last month, JPMorgan Chase published an update of its environmental and social policy framework, stating that they expected to continue defunding companies engaged in mountaintop mining. And in the U.K., Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) published a mining policy update prohibiting deals with the main MTR producers. Unlike Crédit Agricole’s new policy, these policy changes at JPMorgan Chase and RBS have teeth: both banks will stop financing top MTR producers, including Alpha and Arch.

Today, our allies went straight to Crédit Agricole’s annual shareholder meeting to tell the bank’s CEO and board close its massive MTR loophole, and stop funding Alpha and Arch.

Take action: We have Crédit Agricole's attention — will you add your voice?

Yann Louvel, Climate and Energy Campaign Coordinator, BankTrack
Ben Collins, Research and Policy Campaigner, Rainforest Action Network


Extreme Coal - No Longer Business as Usual

Extreme Investments

For the first time since we began publishing coal finance report cards five years ago, we have an encouraging trend to report: Major banks have begun making noise about the growing financial risk associated with climate change—and specifically associated with coal, the top global contributor to carbon pollution.

On top of that, major banks have begun to cut ties with the biggest mountaintop removal (MTR) coal companies. This progress has exposed a growing gap between banks that are still sinking billions into coal, and those that are cutting ties with the worst-of-the-worst in the coal industry.

Today, RAN, the Sierra Club, and BankTrack released our 2014 Coal Finance Report Card, “Extreme Investments, Extreme Consequences,” which grades U.S. banks on their performance and policies related to coal-fired power and mountaintop removal coal mining. We also uncovered the top financiers of contentious coal export schemes like those in the Pacific Northwest and coal trains that transport dusty coal across the United States.

All told, banks sank over $31 billion into the worst companies in the coal industry last year, with $6.5 billion coming from Citigroup, the top funder of coal-fired power. However, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo began to phase out financing for MTR, earning our first ever “B” grades, and marking a positive trend away from the extreme mining practice.

Meanwhile, UK-based Barclays increased its exposure to MTR, financing $550 million for mountaintop removal coal companies last year, more than any other bank.

Environmental damage from mining, transporting, and burning coal—including health hazards like air pollution and water contamination from spills—doesn’t just harm communities and the environment, it costs banks money. In the report card, we highlight examples of this in case studies about the rising cost of clean-up for water contamination at mine sites, increases in coal company bankruptcies, and money-losing coal-fired power plants.

Download the 2014 Coal Finance Report Card

Download the 2014 Coal Finance Report Card.

The report comes on the heels of analyst publications from Goldman Sachs, HSBC and Citigroup last year, each of which challenged the case for continued investment in the coal industry. These and other banks have acknowledged that power plant regulations, a potential price on carbon, and competition from renewable energy sources could “strand” assets such as coal mining, transport, and power generation facilities. With billions of dollars in loans on the line, it’s not a question of if climate risk will translate into financial risk, but when.

Ironically, these very same banks maintain deep financial ties to the riskiest and most environmentally destructive companies in the U.S. coal industry. As credit ratings for some coal mining companies sank farther below investment grade last year, banks continued to place bets on risky loans to the sector.

The report card warns banks that before the carbon bubble bursts onto their balance sheets, it will irreversibly destabilize the climate. So while we are happy to report that a few banks took the first steps to cut off financing to the worst-of-the-worst of the coal industry, the banking industry as a whole must now cut its losses and forge a path away from coal, before it’s too late for both them and us.

TAKE ACTION: Tell Barclays, the number one banker of mountaintop removal, to end its support of destroying mountains and poisoning communities for coal.


Banking on Coal: New BankTrack Report Highlights Bank Complicity in Global Coal Mining Boom

banking on coal “Most innovative investment bank for climate change.” – Citigroup “Mak(ing) your life greener and help(ing) tackle climate change.” – Morgan Stanley “Financing a low carbon economy.” – Bank of America When banks tout slogans such as these, you might expect them to mean that they plan to phase out financing for coal, the single largest source of global climate emissions. Unfortunately, these and other banks are doing the opposite, as a new report from the BankTrack network and RAN found. Since 2005, the year the Kyoto Protocol came into force, bank financing for coal mining companies increased by 397 percent. This surge in bank financing for coal is not just hypocritical, it’s also insane: Leading scientific, policy, and civil society institutions around the world have concluded that burning more than 20% of existing global coal reserves would lock in catastrophic climate change. The BankTrack report, entitled "Banking on Coal," was released at the COP 19 climate conference in Warsaw, Poland and also found that global coal production has grown by 69 percent since 2000 and has now reached 7.9 billion tons annually. The future of coal was a front-and-center issue at COP 19 and at a simultaneous coal industry conference held in Warsaw this month. In a speech at the World Coal Conference, Christiana Figueres, the chair of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, told attendees that any responsible future for the global coal industry must involve “leav(ing) most existing reserves in the ground.” The finance industry has played a key role in the recent global coal boom: In the past eight years, 89 commercial banks provided $158 billion in financing to the world’s largest and most destructive mining companies. Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, and Bank of America—the very same banks that mouth the sustainability slogans mentioned above—topped the list of coal-financing banks, providing $9.76 billion, $9.69 billion, and $8.79 billion, respectively. The report also highlights coal production “hot spots” on six continents where coal extraction has had especially devastating impacts on communities, ecosystems, or human health. Building on research from BankTrack member organizations around the globe, the report highlights the destructive impacts that coal mining is having on India’s last tiger forests, on Appalachian communities in the U.S., and on scarce water resources in South Africa. Banks are not alone in their climate hypocrisy. For example, the Government of Poland touted its commitment to powering the country with coal even as it played host to the COP 19 climate conference. But despite stiff competition from governments of Poland and other emissions-intensive countries, the degree to which major global banks are complicit in the worst coal mining projects around the world is staggering. Fortunately, bank hypocrisy on coal doesn’t work like it used to. Students certainly aren’t fooled, as campus groups across the U.S. have disrupted over 50 Bank of America and Citigroup recruitment sessions this fall over the leading role these banks play in financing the coal industry. Globally, the climate movement is becoming stronger by the day and has attracted growing support from within the financial industry, leaving the banks highlighted in the report increasingly isolated in their support for a coal-fired future.

Seven of Bloomberg's Top Ten "Greenest Banks" Are Climate Killers

BloombergGlobalWarmingA Guest blog-post by Yann Louvel, BankTrack's Climate and Energy Campaign Coordinator This week, Bloomberg published the results of its third annual ranking of the “world’s greenest banks”: Citi was ranked first, followed by Santander and JPMorgan. The study assesses banks based on their lending to clean-energy projects and reduction in their own power consumption and carbon footprints. However, banks’ support for dirty energy, such as fossil fuel and nuclear power, is notably absent from Bloomberg’s methodology. When the value of banks’ finance for fossil fuels so often dwarfs their investments in renewables, Bloomberg’s data does not even tell half of the story. Measuring the Good, Ignoring the Bad One question mark over Bloomberg’s ranking is its definition of “clean energy”, and in particular its inclusion of hydropower (including large environmentally and socially destructive dam projects) and biomass/biofuels in this definition. But the fundamental problem with its approach lies in the complete omission of banks’ investments in fossil fuels and nuclear energy.  While banks’ growing investments in green energy are to be welcomed, it is even more crucial that investments in fossil fuels drop drastically in the coming years if we are to have a chance of avoiding catastrophic global warming. The ratio of green to "brown" investments would provide a meaningful study on the level of “greenness” of a bank, but looking at clean investments alone makes this little more than a PR exercise for the banking sector. To give a concrete example of this problem, BankTrack, together with urgewald, Groundwork and Earthlife Africa, released the “Bankrolling Climate Change” report in Durban in 2011. The report is an investigation into the coal investments of the world’s leading banks. We looked at the funding of 93 international banks in 71 coal companies between 2005 and 2011 to identify the “top 20 climate killer banks” in the world. The results show a significant overlap between Bloomberg’s “world’s greenest banks” and the top 20 climate killer banks. In fact, seven of Bloomberg’s top ten appear in the “Climate Killer” list.
Bloomberg’s “World’s Greenest Banks”
Name Bloomberg rating (2012) Climate Killer Banks rating (2011)
Citigroup 1 2
Santander 2 -
JP Morgan Chase 3 1
Mitsubishi UFJ Finance Group 4 17
Credit Suisse Group 5 9
Goldman Sachs 6 11
Deutsche Bank 7 6
Mizuho Financial Group 8 -
Lloyds Banking Group 9 -
Barclays 10 5
  Citi, which tops Bloomberg’s list, was rated the number two climate killer bank, and JPMorgan, our number one climate killer bank, is Bloomberg’s number three. Citi’s investments in the coal industry grew by 40% between 2005 and 2010 as the bank poured more than €13 billion into the coal industry. Citi’s profile on the BankTrack website links the bank to the controversial Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, as well as mountaintop removal coal mining and the controversial Alpha Coal project in Australia, expected to directly and negatively impact the Great Barrier Reef. This makes the “Greenest Bank in the World” tag a little hard to swallow. Environmental Direct-Impact, Back to Sustainability Pre-History Another disturbing aspect of Bloomberg’s methodology is that “reductions in air emissions and water use and gains in energy efficiency” account for a full 30 percent of the score. These are banks’ “direct” impacts, e.g. their own use of energy for electricity and office heating. If this approach would have been understandable in the 1990s, it seems extremely dated in 2013, to say the least. Numerous studies, particularly from NGOs including many from BankTrack members and partners in the past few years, have clearly demonstrated that banks’ primary environmental impacts are result from their core activities – their lending and investments - rather than through their “direct” impacts. While the sustainability debate in the banking sector started ten or twenty years ago with these direct impacts, the trend since then has been towards looking at the issues that matter: the impacts of banks’ finance. Methodologies for measuring these ‘financed emissions’ already exist, and BankTrack has long called on banks to report on these impacts systematically. Management and reduction of direct impacts should be considered a ‘hygiene factor’ for banks, rather than a core issue. When Bloomberg reports that JPMorgan, which invested more than €16 billion in the coal industry between 2005 and 2011, “revamped its Park Avenue headquarters in New York, where energy-saving lights now dim automatically and a 54,000-gallon basement tank collects rain for flushing toilets and watering plants”, one has to wonder if it is looking down its telescope backwards. Stop The Greenwashing By avoiding mention of fossil fuels and nuclear energy, and by giving undue weight to banks’ direct impacts, Bloomberg’s “greenest banks” methodology is fundamentally, and it would seem deliberately, flawed. (BankTrack and partners Rainforest Action Network and urgewald already raised these concerns in a letter to Bloomberg last year). The results of this study will now be used by the “world’s greenest banks” in their marketing and public relations material - a generous but undeserved gift to banks which are ploughing billions into environmentally destructive projects. This is a shame when there remain plenty of opportunities for Bloomberg, banks, analysts and other stakeholders to examine bank’s investments in fossil fuels, nuclear power, and their financed emissions. BankTrack will continue to denounce such greenwashing exercises in the coming months and years.

Do We Need Natural Capital or Nature Without Capital?

squeezing money from the earthAs the Rio+20 'Earth' summit gets underway, we're hearing a slew of 'sustainability' pronouncements and declarations from the business sector, to illustrate their planet-saving intentions. One of these is the 'Natural Capital Declaration' (NCD), launched on Saturday by more than 35 financial institutions. They claim that this marks the first time the world of finance explicitly has made the protection and preservation of natural ecosystems a priority for CEO-level consideration and action. RAN has been campaigning for many years for the financial sector to take serious responsibility for the impacts on critical ecosystems caused by the corporations, projects and industries that it underwrites. However, we have some big concerns about the NCD... BankTrack (a network that RAN is a member of) put out the following response statement, which we agree with:
BankTrack welcomes any initiative by the financial sector that unequivocally acknowledges the inherent value of nature, as well as the limits posed to their business activities by the environmental carrying capacity of the earth. We equally welcome any sufficiently ambitious, credible initiative of the sector to factor this fundamental recognition into their business and investment decisions. BankTrack considers the Natural Capital Declaration not such an initiative, but a false and disturbing response of the financial sector to the profound ecological crises of today. It is based upon a fatally flawed understanding of the root causes of these crises (imperfect valuation of ‘Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services’) and proposes an equally flawed solution to them (proper pricing). The Declaration claims the fundamental right of business, and the adopting institutions in particular, to enter every realm of nature and the environment and to identify, price and subsequently market whatever ‘stock’ and ‘service’ can be identified there, under the pretext that this commodification process will help end the ongoing plunder and exploitation of nature. As such, the Declaration is another attempt to promote the liberal, market based ‘green economy’ model sought by business as outcome of the Rio conference. BankTrack believes that the manifold ecological crises need a wholly different response: instead of expanding the scope of markets to every domain of nature, creating a true green economy would start from the opposite; reversing the tide of commodification and financialization, reducing the role of markets and the financial sector, acknowledging the limits of business versus other spheres of life, and recognizing the collective responsibility of all people for, and strengthening the democratic control over the worlds’ ecological commons. Rather than a Natural Capital Declaration we need more Nature without Capital. Instead of launching a vaguely worded voluntary initiative with no immediate discernible impact on everyday investment decisions, we call upon the financial sector to withdraw itself from where it has no rightful place, to adopt strict no-go standards for all business activities that wreak havoc upon nature, climate, the environment and people, and to throw its full weight behind those sectors and initiatives that help preserve, protect and restore the life giving capacity of the earth.

Goldman Sachs Sets the Wrong Target

Goldman Sachs logoLast week I received an announcement from Goldman Sachs proudly promoting their latest Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) report, highlighting efforts to address environmental, social and governance issues in 2011 and an ongoing commitment to clean energy financing. At first glance, this perhaps sounds good — the optimistic side of me wants to feel some sign of progress that groups like RAN, BankTrack, and our many allies have raised environmental issues high enough on the banking agenda for Goldman Sachs to be putting their resources these initiatives. But when I scratch the varnish on this announcement, my pessimistic side takes over. Goldman's flagship clean energy commitment — a new target to make $40 billion energy investments or financing over the next ten years — lacks ambition. It is actually a step backwards, implying a lower level of financing than in the previous six years. The average $4 billion annual target is actually lower than the $4.8 billion that Goldman Sachs invested in the sector in 2011, and also less than the average of $4.6 billion since its initial environmental target was set in 2005. From that point until the end of 2011, the bank had arranged $24 billion worth of financing and invested $4 billion of its own funds into renewable energy. But, more importantly, this commitment to renewable energy financing masks the significant amounts of money that Goldman Sachs is putting into fossil fuels, in particular coal. Here are some of the bank's recent 'efforts' that the bank needs to address:
  • In December 2011 Goldman Sachs was ranked the 11th worst 'Climate Killer' bank in terms of global coal financing in the ‘Bankrolling Climate Change’ report by BankTrack
  • Goldman Sachs owns a majority share in SSA Marine, the company that is planning to build the west coast's largest coal export terminal in Bellingham, Washington, threatening the critical ecosystem of Cherry Point Reach
  • In 2010 and 2011, Goldman Sachs underwrote seven of the most polluting utility companies that operate fleets of coal-fired power plants, the single largest source of climate pollution in the U.S.
  • Goldman Sachs owns and operates the Cedar Bay coal-fired power plant in Florida, which emitted 1.8 million tonnes of CO2 in 2011.
Goldman Sachs devotes pages of its new report to talking about its efforts to reduce their 'operational' climate emissions (those emissions that come from bank offices, staff travel etc). However, as RAN has said many times before, the most significant climate impact of any bank is the emissions of those companies and projects that the bank finances. Yet again, Goldman Sachs has avoided this topic.

The report also devotes a section to its "Creative financing solutions to protect and preserve the Great Barrier Reef", directly quoting the IPCC's ominous prediction that "by 2020, if nothing was done, as much as 60% of the Reef would bleach every second year". If Goldman Sachs is truly serious about saving the Reef and our climate, then the first obvious step is to get out of bed with the coal industry, and to set some  serious financed-emissions reduction targets.


WestLB Takes A Brave Step In The Right Direction

WestLB logoThis post is by Yann Louvel, BankTrack Climate and Energy Campaign Coordinator. Last month we got some promising news from WestLB, the German bank. They produced a new policy on Arctic drilling (which our friends at Platform have written about here) and they published an update of their coal policy. While the first edition of their policy on "Coal-Fired Power Generation" already included interesting requirements for prospective clients, such as the need for operators "to provide the physical space necessary to carry out carbon capture (CCS)", this new edition has even more on offer. For instance, this is the first time that I have seen a bank stipulate as a requirement to power-plant operators the need "to ensure that there is no feasible less GHG-intensive alternative/fuel/energy source". Another 'first of its kind' criteria is the need for WestLB clients to have "Green House Gas reduction targets (to) be in place, monitored and audited in accordance with the 2 degrees Celsius taget of the EU and UNFCCC". These requirements, while self evident to us, are definitely not common practice in the banking sector today. They create the right incentives and send the right warning signals to bankers and clients alike that future requests for financing coal projects/companies will be intensely scrutinized, and will require more paper work, time and money to proceed. Overall, with this coal policy WestLB takes a brave step in the right direction, and sets an example for other banks to follow swiftly. The only problem is that this mental shift in bankers' brains needs to happen EXTREMELY quickly. The International Energy Agency stated in its latest World Energy Outlook that to have a chance of achieving the 2°C scenario, "all infrastructure built after 2017 needs to be zero carbon". With CCS still being out of reach by then and with several years needed to build a new coal power plant, this basically means that investments in new coal power plants need to stop NOW if we want to be serious about combating climate change. That's the difficult reality banks need to be confronted with and must act upon.

The Top 20 Climate Killer Banks

Bankrolling Climate Change coverA new report titled “Bankrolling Climate Change” calls out the top 20 banks that are financing the dirty coal industry. The top three “climate killers” will not come as much of a surprise: JP Morgan Chase, Citi, and none other than Bank of America top the list with $22 billion, $18.27 billion, an $16.79 billion invested in coal since 2005, respectively. As officials from around the world are assembling in Durban, South Africa to discuss ways to combat climate change, banks around the world are busy trying to figure out how they can profit off of making the climate crisis worse. In fact, between 2005 — the year the Kyoto Protocol went into effect — and 2010, funding for coal nearly doubled. Yes, you read that right: As the world’s leaders have been trying to get their act together and deal with the most urgent existential crisis humanity has ever faced, the biggest banks in the world have been busy sinking as much money as they can into the single largest cause of that crisis (emissions from coal-fired power plants are the biggest source of man-made carbon pollution). As the report notes, these banks are not unaware of the climate crisis. It’s just that they see it more as an opportunity for some great PR than a problem they have a stake in solving even if it means leaving money on the table. All of the top 20 coal bankrollers have made climate commitments that are drastically contradicted by where they’re actually investing their money. JP Morgan Chase claims it’s “Helping the world transition to a low-carbon economy”, for instance. Citi holds itself out as the “Most innovative bank in climate change” — which sounds more like Citi is gunning for Chase’s number one spot than trying to help solve the climate crisis, but who am I to quibble with how Citi chooses to word its greenwash. Bank of America has declared that “The most formidable challenge we face is global climate change.” A fittingly purposeless statement, given that BoA has invested $4.3 billion in the US coal industry, making it the single largest underwriter of America’s coal problem. Here is a chart showing which banks made the top 20, and the amount they’ve invested in companies that are polluting our communities and wrecking our climate:
Bank in billion Euro   Ranking
JP Morgan Chase 16,540 1
Citi 13,751 2
Bank of America 12,590 3
Morgan Stanley 12,117 4
Barclays 11,514 5
Deutsche Bank 11,477 6
Royal Bank of Scotland 10,946 7
BNP Paribas 10,694 8
Credit Suisse 9,495 9
UBS 8,217 10
Goldman Sachs 6,770 11
Bank of China 6,323 12
Industrial and Commercial Bank of China 6,182 13
Crédit Agricole / Calyon 5,637 14
UniCredit / HVB 5,231 15
China Construction Bank 5,110 16
Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group 4,980 17
Société Générale 4,742 18
Wells Fargo 4,523 19
HSBC 4,432 20
Data provided by Profundo

An international coalition of NGOs came together to release this groundbreaking report, including urgewald, a German environmental organization; groundWork and Earthlife Africa Johannesburg, two South African social and environmental justice organizations; and BankTrack, an international network. RAN contributed research to the report. A full copy of the study with a ranking of all the researched banks can be downloaded here. The underlying data for this research were provided by Profundo economic research. They can be found here.

Keeping an Eye on Big Banks

[caption id="attachment_7210" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Dollar Bill Eye: Photo By Charles Shopsin"][/caption] RAN has a strong history of pressuring the financial sector to take responsibility for where it invests money – and we are not alone. Here’s a peep at some websites from organizations around the world who are shining a spotlight on the banking sector...

Banktrack

BankTrack is a global network of civil society organizations and individuals tracking the operations of the private financial sector (commercial banks, investors, insurance companies, pension funds) and its effect on people and the planet. Their website is an excellent resource for information about critical ethical banking issues, listings of ‘dodgy deals’ and reports about the banking sector’s approach to corporate social responsibility.

Bank Secrets

A very interactive website that profiles the dubious dealings of 16 European banks, with links to ways that you can campaign to get the banks to clean up their acts.

IFIwatchnet

A network of 60+ organizations from around the world interested in the impact of international financial institutions, such as the World Bank and IMF, on civil society organizations, policy makers, activists, researchers and journalists.

IFIwatch TV

TV shows, animations, documentaries, music videos, and feature films, along with critical news, blogs, events and detailed analysis of the International Financial Institutions still using taxpayer money for projects and policies few people want, as well as what we can do to change them.

Banks Ranked and Spanked on Tar Sands

[caption id="attachment_5586" align="alignleft" width="250" caption="Illustration by Stefan Lorant"][/caption] As an ode to the  "rank 'em and spank 'em" strategy coined by our outgoing Executive Director Mike Brune, we proudly present the following roster of international banks backing expansion in the tar sands. The table below is based on credit extended underwritten by each bank to companies operating in the tar sands since 2007 according to Bloomberg. Restrictions at Bloomberg now prevent us from publishing deal-by-deal details to the web, but are available upon request if you leave your email in the comments. Each of these banks received letters from RAN, IEN and BankTrack late last year requesting information about how they are addressing the damage caused by tar sands development. Responses (or lack thereof) will help us identify which banks are serious about responsible banking, and which may need more convincing. Responses received to date are also linked in the table after the jump. UPDATE: There's been some questions about how these numbers are derived.  We have answers, following the table.

Rank Bank Response to RAN Loans (Million USD)*

1 RBC Yes $16,903

2 JP Morgan Chase No $13,895

3 Citi Yes $12,775

4 TD Securities Yes $12,043

5 CIBC No $10,467

6 Bank of America Yes $10,101

7 RBS No $7,544

8 Scotia Bank Yes $4,685

9 BMO No $4,467

10 Wells Fargo No $2,176

11 Barclays No $1,450

12 Société Générale No $936

13 HSBC Yes $667

14 BNP Paribas No $261

15 Intesa Sanpaolo No $250

16 Sumitomo No $186

17 Calyon No $119

18 ING Yes $119

19 KBC No $119

20 Mizuho No $111

21 Credit Suisse Yes $67

22 ANZ No $44

23 Mitsubishi UFJ No $44

24 Rabobank Yes $44

25 WestLB Yes $44

26 Standard Chartered PLC No $44
*Totals are based on underwriting league tables reported by Bloomberg. Totals are derived from loans to companies with significant operations in the tar sands. Specifically the companies listed below. Totals may not reflect actual lending. Totals represent the full value of loans where the bank acted as lead book-runner (also called managing underwriter, lead manager, etc...) . Where the bank was one of multiple lead book-runners, value is awarded pro-rata.  Here's the details from Bloomberg (look under "fixed income eligibility criteria"). Athabasca Oil Sands Corp Baytex Energy Trust Bonavista Energy Trust BP plc Bronco Energy Ltd Canadian Natural Resources Ltd Canadian Oil Sands Trust CanWest Petroleum Corp Cenovus Energy Inc Chevron Corp China National Petroleum Corp Connacher Oil & Gas Ltd ConocoPhillips Devon Energy Corp Enbridge Inc EnCana Corp Enerplus Resources Fund Exxon Mobil Corp Harvest Energy Trust Husky Energy Inc Imperial Oil Ltd Inter Pipeline Fund Kinder Morgan Energy Partners LP Koch Resources LLC Korea National Oil Corp Marathon Oil Corp MEG Energy Corp Mocal Energy Ltd Murphy Oil Corp Nexen Inc Nippon Oil Corp Occidental Petroleum Corp Oilsands Quest Inc OPTI Canada Inc Paramount Resources Ltd Pembina Pipeline Income Fund Pengrowth Energy Trust Penn West Energy Trust Petrobank Energy & Resources Ltd Petro-Canada Royal Dutch Shell plc Sinopec Group StatoilHydro ASA Suncor Energy Inc Syncrude Canada Ltd Total SA TransCanada Corp UTS Energy Corp