Fossil fuel projects: NGOs ask investors to cut TotalEnergies’ main sources of finance

By Antoine Bouhey, Lara Cuvelier, Helen Burley*
Reclaim Finance has joined 58 NGOs from around the world, including Banktrack, in signing an open letter calling on banks and investors to stop participating in bonds (loans granted by investors and facilitated by banks) issued by TotalEnergies.
The 58 NGO signatories include 350.org, Amazon Watch, BankTrack, Centre for Environmental Law and Community Rights (CELCOR, Papua New Guinea), Justiça Ambiental (Mozambique) and Friday for Future (Uganda), Oil Change International and Urgewald (Germany).
Bonds are the French oil and gas major’s main source of financing, and as such enable it to pursue its climate-wrecking strategy by developing new oil and gas projects, ignoring scientific recommendations to limit global warming to 1.5°C. The letters come just days after TotalEnergies raised US$4.25 billion on the bond market, with the help of several banks, including BPCE/Natixis, Standard Chartered and Deutsche Bank. With four existing bonds due to expire this year, the NGOs are warning banks and investors against their renewal.
TotalEnergies currently has 45 active bonds, totaling US$48.9 billion, with bonds accounting for some 68% of its financing between 2016 and 2022. Between 2016 and 2022, TotalEnergies raised US$37.6 billion via bonds. Last week, TotalEnergies raised US$4.25 billion on the bond market supported by banks, including Standard Chartered, BPCE/Natixis, and Deutsche Bank.
BNP Paribas, Société Générale and Crédit Agricole did not participate in the bond, even though they are the biggest financiers of TotalEnergies.
The company, which shows no sign of transitioning away from oil and gas, can use this finance to continue its strategy of developing new oil and gas projects in 53 countries, including Mozambique, Papua New Guinea and South Africa.
Finance raised via bonds is used for “general corporate purposes” and so can be used by the company as they wish. The map of countries where TotalEnergies is active and/or planning new projects is available here.
Bonds are particularly useful to TotalEnergies given that some banks, particularly French banks, have pledged to stop directly financing some of its more controversial projects such as the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) or Papua LNG.

Crédit Agricole, BNP Paribas, Société Générale and BPCE/Natixis have said they will not finance the controversial Papua LNG project in Papua New Guinea and TotalEnergies announced on 8 April that the project’s Final Investment Decision has been postponed yet again, to 2025.”
By helping TotalEnergies to raise money on the bond market, they are indirectly enabling it to finance these projects.
Bonds are more discreet than project financing and provide TotalEnergies with a veritable El Dorado. It’s mind blowing to see that the financial players involved in Total’s latest bond are agreeing to finance Total until 2064! It is more than time that the investors and the banks behind these colossal transactions recognized their responsibility in financing Total’s climate-wrecking strategy.
The NGOs are calling on the banks to commit to no longer facilitating the issue of new bonds by TotalEnergies or any other company developing new oil and gas projects. They are also calling on investors to stop investing in new bonds issued by TotalEnergies and to make a public commitment not to invest in bonds issued by any company developing new oil and gas projects.
With 10 of TotalEnergies; 45 active bonds due to expire by the end of 2025, it is possible that the company will seek to renew them in order to raise capital. Four bonds mature in 2024 and six mature in 2025.
Faced with this risk, 58 NGOs have sent an open letter to the banks and investors involved in TotalEnergies’ most recent bonds, including Abrdn, Allianz, Amundi, BlackRock, Bank of America, Barclays, NatWest, Deutsche Bank and Société Générale asking them not to renew their support.Find the briefing here.
---
*With Reclaim Finance. Source: BankTrack

Comments

Swami Vivekananda's views on caste and sexuality were 'painfully' regressive

By Bhaskar Sur* Swami Vivekananda now belongs more to the modern Hindu mythology than reality. It makes a daunting job to discover the real human being who knew unemployment, humiliation of losing a teaching job for 'incompetence', longed in vain for the bliss of a happy conjugal life only to suffer the consequent frustration.

CFA flags ‘welfare retreat’ in Union Budget 2026–27, alleges corporate bias

By Jag Jivan The advocacy group Centre for Financial Accountability (CFA) has sharply criticised the Union Budget 2026–27 , calling it a “budget sans kartavya” that weakens public welfare while favouring private corporations, even as inequality, climate risks and social distress deepen across the country.

Four women lead the way among Tamil Nadu’s Muslim change-makers

By Syed Ali Mujtaba* A report published by Awaz–The Voice (ATV), a news platform, highlights 10 Muslim change-makers in Tamil Nadu, among whom four are women. These individuals are driving social change through education, the arts, conservation, and activism. Representing diverse fields ranging from environmental protection and literature to political engagement and education, they are working to improve society across the state.

From water scarcity to sustainable livelihoods: The turnaround of Salaiya Maaf

By Bharat Dogra We were sitting at a central place in Salaiya Maaf village, located in Mahoba district of Uttar Pradesh, for a group discussion when an elderly woman said in an emotional voice, “It is so good that you people came. Land on which nothing grew can now produce good crops.”

'Big blow to crores of farmers’: Opposition mounts against US–India trade deal

By A Representative Farmers’ organisations and political groups have sharply criticised the emerging contours of the US–India trade agreement, warning that it could severely undermine Indian agriculture, depress farm incomes and open the doors to genetically modified (GM) food imports in violation of domestic regulatory safeguards.

When free trade meets unequal fields: The India–US agriculture question

By Vikas Meshram The proposed trade agreement between India and the United States has triggered intense debate across the country. This agreement is not merely an attempt to expand bilateral trade; it is directly linked to Indian agriculture, the rural economy, democratic processes, and global geopolitics. Free trade agreements (FTAs) may appear attractive on the surface, but the political economy and social consequences behind them are often unequal and controversial. Once again, a fundamental question has surfaced: who will benefit from this agreement, and who will pay its price?

Why Russian oil has emerged as the flashpoint in India–US trade talks

By N.S. Venkataraman* In recent years, India has entered into trade agreements with several countries, the latest being agreements with the European Union and the United States. While the India–EU trade agreement has been widely viewed in India as mutually beneficial and balanced, the trade agreement with the United States has generated comparatively greater debate and scrutiny.

Trade pacts with EU, US raise alarms over farmers, MSMEs and policy space

By A Representative A broad coalition of farmers’ organisations, trade unions, traders, public health advocates and environmental groups has raised serious concerns over India’s recently concluded trade agreements with the European Union and the United States, warning that the deals could have far-reaching implications for livelihoods, policy autonomy and the country’s long-term development trajectory. In a public statement issued, the Forum for Trade Justice described the two agreements as marking a “tectonic shift” in India’s trade policy and cautioned that the projected gains in exports may come at a significant social and economic cost.

Samyukt Kisan Morcha raises concerns over ‘corporate bias’ in seed Bill

By A Representative The Samyukt Kisan Morcha (SKM) has released a statement raising ten questions to Union Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan regarding the proposed Seed Bill 2025, alleging that the legislation is biased in favour of large multinational and domestic seed corporations and does not adequately safeguard farmers’ interests.

Search This Blog