Introduction

The report examines the rapid expansion of liquefied natural gas (LNG) infrastructure following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine and subsequent energy market disruptions. Since then, LNG has been promoted as a solution for energy security, despite existing export capacity being sufficient under 1.5 °C-aligned scenarios. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has repeatedly stated that no new LNG export infrastructure is required.

Between 2021 and 2023, eight export terminals and 99 import terminals were completed globally, increasing export capacity by 7% and import capacity by 19%. Developers are planning 156 additional terminals by 2030. Given the multi-decade lifespan of LNG infrastructure, this expansion risks locking in long-term fossil fuel dependence, undermining climate goals, and increasing the likelihood of stranded assets. The report focuses on the role of banks and investors in enabling this expansion and assesses the alignment of their financing with stated climate commitments.

Methodology

The analysis covers financial flows to the 150 largest LNG developers, representing over 90% of planned global LNG capacity to 2030. Bank financing data from 2021–2023 covers project and corporate finance provided by 400 banks, adjusted to reflect the LNG share of company activities. Investor exposure includes equity and bond holdings by 400 investors as of May 2024.

Data sources include Refinitiv, Bloomberg, Urgewald’s Global Oil and Gas Exit List, and the Investing in Climate Chaos database. Lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions to 2030 are estimated using peer-reviewed methane leakage and emissions research, with country-specific adjustments. The assessment of financial institution policies draws on Reclaim Finance’s Oil and Gas Policy Tracker.

The billions flowing into LNG expansion

LNG developers plan 63 new export terminals and 93 import terminals by 2030, adding 472.7 Mtpa of liquefaction capacity and 365.2 Mtpa of regasification capacity. Between 2021 and 2023, banks provided US$213 billion in financing to LNG expansion, while investors held US$252 billion in exposure as of May 2024.

US banks accounted for 24% of total financing, followed by Japanese banks at 14%, Chinese banks at 11%, and Canadian banks at 8%. Although no European bank ranks in the global top ten, European banks collectively provided 27% of total financing. Seventy-one per cent of all bank financing came from just 30 institutions.

US investors dominate LNG expansion, accounting for 71% of total investor exposure. BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street alone represent 24% of global LNG investment. Private equity firms play a growing role, backing nine of 15 planned US LNG export terminals.

Geographically, new export capacity is concentrated in the United States, Canada and Mexico, while import growth is driven by Europe, South Asia and Southeast Asia. Planned LNG export terminals could emit over 10 GtCO₂e by 2030, comparable to annual emissions from operating coal plants globally. Methane leakage, which is over 80 times more potent than CO₂ over 20 years, significantly erodes any claimed climate advantage of gas over coal.

Ambitious words, inadequate actions

Most major banks and investors supporting LNG expansion are members of net-zero initiatives, yet policy implementation is weak. Only seven European banks have LNG-related restrictions, none of which fully align with the IEA’s Net Zero Emissions pathway. No top-ten LNG-financing bank has adopted an LNG-specific policy.

Existing policies focus narrowly on export terminals and often exclude only projects linked to unconventional gas or new upstream fields, leaving substantial loopholes. None of the policies address LNG import terminals, despite their role in reinforcing fossil fuel dependence and creating stranded asset risk.

Corporate financing, which accounts for the vast majority of fossil fuel finance, remains largely unrestricted. As a result, banks with partial LNG policies have continued providing billions of dollars in support to LNG developers. This creates a clear double standard, where some institutions restrict financing for new gas fields but continue supporting LNG infrastructure that relies on expanded gas extraction.

The report highlights growing social and environmental impacts linked to LNG projects, including air pollution, ecosystem damage, and human rights concerns affecting local and Indigenous communities. It concludes that without stronger, comprehensive restrictions on both project and corporate financing, financial institutions will continue to drive LNG expansion that is incompatible with climate targets.