1st Quarter 2026
Japanese banks took the top three places in Poten’s 2026 ranking of LNG project finance lenders, as they also did in 2023 and 2021. Japan’s MUFG Bank climbed the rankings and was first after coming second in 2024, and third in 2023 and 2021. Also in the top ten were three banks from Europe: the UK’s Standard Chartered; Spain’s Santander and BBVA; and they were joined by JPMorgan from the US; and three Canadian banks tied in seventh place which were National Bank of Canada, Royal Bank of Canada, and Scotiabank.
In the 2026 ranking, which is based on deals concluded in 2025, the tone for placement was set by contributions to US projects, with the big international project finance lenders across Japan, Europe, the US and Canada continuing to show a healthy appetite for US LNG project risk (see Table).
Banks provided loans for four of the unprecedented six US LNG projects that reached final investment decisions (FIDs) in 2025 and for one operating project where they are being used for refinancing and working capital purposes. The US 2025 transactions that determined the 2026 ranking were for:
- Venture Global, which obtained two equity bridge loans of $3 billion and a $12.1 billion loan plus working capital for CP2 LNG Phase 1, and $1.6 billion for the Blackfin pipeline that will feed gas to CP2 LNG,
- NextDecade, which obtained a $3.8 billion loan and equity bridge loan of $1.46 billion for the Rio Grande Train 4 project and $3.6 billion loan and $1.5 billion equity bridge loan for the Rio Grande Train 5 project,
- Stonepeak, which used $6 billion of bank loans for a back-leveraged project financing when it bought a stake in Woodside’s Louisiana LNG,
- A repriced loan (term loan B) of around $1.2 billion for Freeport LNG Investments and new letter of credit and working capital of $215 million for Freeport LNG Train 2.
Each of the US LNG export projects attracted around 15-30 initial lenders. However, it is difficult to capture data on all phases of syndication – selling down to a wider group of banks – on multi-billion-dollar project financings, so the final numbers of banks participating on deals are typically understated in the yearly rankings.
Commercial banks, both large and small, often show lending preferences for their own turf and as a result amounts lent to LNG are determined by the geographical spread of projects. Therefore, in addition to the big banks, both domestic and international, the US transactions also attracted second-tier regional US banks.
Chinese bank lending fell in the 2026 ranking, probably because of a lower US risk tolerance amid the 2025 escalation in the trade dispute between the two countries. Their higher positions on the 2025 ranking were determined by large loans written for Canadian LNG export projects Woodfibre LNG and Cedar LNG, plus the latter’s associated Coastal Gaslink pipeline.
Arabian Gulf banks moved up the ranking or appeared as LNG lenders to US projects for the first time. Their presence is likely because companies from their countries are acting as equity investors or customers of US export projects. In Rio Grande Train 4, for example, Abu Dhabi’s Mubadala has a stake and Abu Dhabi’s ADNOC and Saudi Aramco are customers.
The non-US transactions that also helped determine the 2026 ranking were spread across import and export projects in the UK, Poland, Nigeria, Senegal/Mauritania, Singapore and Philippines:
Centrica and Energy Capital Partners obtained £1.1 billion ($1.5 billion) of loans to buy the UK’s Grain LNG import terminal,
Excelerate got a $850 million bridge loan to buy New Fortress Energy’s Jamaica business for just over $1 billion. Assets include two LNG import terminals and associated power facilities,
Manila Electric Co. (Meralco) through its Meralco PowerGen Corp. subsidiary secured a $1.3 billion loan. It used the proceeds, in a joint venture called Chromite with Aboitiz Power and San Miguel Global Power Holding, to buy the Batangas import terminal from Linseed Field Oil and will invest in new power facilities,
Mitsui Osk Lines (MOL) obtained bank loans of $252 million to build a floating storage and regasification unit (FSRU) which will be used to import LNG in Poland and $189 million to build a FSRU for imports into Singapore,
The Nigeria LNG export facility got a $1.35 billion quasi-corporate loan, which is an add-on to the Train 7 finance taken out in 2020,
Golar LNG secured $1.2 billion of loans to refinance the debt on its Gimi floating liquefaction (FLNG) unit which is deployed on the Senegal-Mauritania maritime border.
The ranking for 2026 contrasts with the previous year’s, which was dominated by financing for Canadian LNG export projects and German and Dutch import projects. New US LNG export projects had little influence on the 2025 rankings because there were few US transactions in 2024. The pause in issuing US non-free trade agreement export licenses and stricter criteria for extensions meant there were no US LNG export project FIDs that year.
Banks avoiding shale drop lower on the ranking
Some European banks, especially those in France that are being pressured by climate change activists, have reduced their support to projects that secure gas from fracking and as a result have seen their positions slip down the ranking over the last several years because US LNG export project financing prevailed; US projects dictated the 2023, 2024 and 2026 rankings.
French banks Societe Generale, Credit Agricole and BNP Paribas, saw their positions fall in the 2026 rankings to 40th, 41st and 42nd place, respectively. However, Societe Generale and Credit Agricole continued to provide refinancing and working capital for Freeport LNG. Their LNG restrictions tend to apply to liquefaction projects based on shale gas feedstock, but they may still lend selectively to some liquefaction projects and import terminals for security of supply reasons.
French banks were among others providing loans in 2025 for the purchase of the Grain LNG import terminal, the MOL FSRU for Poland and Excelerate’s purchase of New Fortress Energy’s Jamaica operations.
Natixis, however, appeared higher up the ranking than its French compatriots, reaching 25th place, because in addition to financing Freeport LNG and the Grain purchase, it was the only one that provided a loan to a new US LNG export project: CP2 LNG Phase 1.
Despite the pullback of some French banks, many other European banks continue to extend large loans to US LNG export projects. Not only were there three in the top ten (Standard Chartered, Santander and BBVA) but others moved up the list and European banks accounted for almost 39% of the LNG project lending by value, compared to 31% the year before (see Lenders Geographic Distribution table).
Project finance bank lending jumps
With the jump in US LNG export project FIDs, project finance lending by commercial banks in 2025 climbed to almost $43 billion, its highest level (see Project Finance Lending Data table). Export projects require more capex and often need large amounts of external finance, so they tend to boost lending totals. The bank loan amounts could have been even higher if Port Arthur LNG Phase 2 had chosen to use limited recourse project finance, but developer Sempra preferred to finance the project with equity contributions. Also, Cheniere did not need to secure external finance for its Corpus Christi Midscale Trains 8 and 9 project (see LNG Finance, 3Q 2025).
In the 2026 ranking, which is based on 2025 data, the average amount supplied to LNG per bank rose to $617 million from $226 million in the previous ranking. A total of 69 lenders from 21 countries provided LNG project finance loans in 2025, showing more diversity than in 2024. This is because financing was sourced for projects across a wider group of European, Asian and African countries as well as the US. For example, in the 2026 ranking, African banks, stepped up to provide finance for Nigeria LNG and Philippines banks supported the import project purchase by Meralco.
The 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026 rankings, which attracted many of the usual global LNG lending heavyweights, contrast with the 2022 ranking, which saw Russian and Chinese financiers occupy the top places after providing large loans to Russia’s Arctic LNG 2 project. However, Russia’s ambitious LNG project development plans have been stalled by international sanctions since its February 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
Next year’s ranking expected to see big liquefaction boost
The 2027 LNG bank ranking, which will be based on this year’s deals, is also expected to be heavily influenced by North American liquefaction deals. Venture Global’s CP2 LNG Phase 2 obtained $8.6 billion of loans from 28 banks in March, Texas LNG says it already has $5.7 billion of loan commitments, and other North American projects hope to follow suit and secure capital (see Liquefaction section).
It is unclear how the ongoing Iran war will reshape LNG project development, after shipping traffic in the Strait of Hormuz was brought to a virtual standstill and attacks took out 17% of Qatar’s LNG production for three to five years. This could provide impetus to LNG export project developers in the US and other countries as importers focus on security of supply.
However, if recent events usher in tighter supply and higher prices, import projects could be threatened. Before the war started on Feb. 28, these had been proliferating on predictions of a growing surplus, which now looks likely to be reduced or wiped out. FSRU plans in Iraq, Morocco and Bangladesh have recently been shelved as project partners rethink either security or economics, and those in New Zealand are also seeing delays.
The lineup of banks in the 2027 rankings could show more diversity if export projects in Africa, Papua New Guinea (PNG) and Argentina reach financial close because they would attract participation from banks in their regions and/or countries. If these projects get funded, next year’s ranking is likely to be composed of a mix of large project finance specialist banks, possibly accompanied by smaller lenders operating across these different geographical areas.
Italy’s Eni is tapping commercial banks for loans after advancing the Coral Norte FLNG project in Mozambique with export credit agencies (ECAs). And if the ExxonMobil-led land-based 18-MMt/y Rovuma project secures finance this year or next it will influence 2027 or 2028 rankings.
ECAs and commercial banks have been approached to fund the $15 billion TotalEnergies-led Papua LNG project in PNG while Japan’s Inpex also wants to raise around $13 billion of debt for its $21 billion Abadi project in Indonesia, although the latter might target a 2027 financial close.
Argentina’s state-owned YPF is hoping to reach FID in 2Q 2026 on the 12-MMt/y Phase 1 of Argentina LNG, and is seeking project finance loans of around $20 billion.
If the deals in the emerging economies move ahead, the supply of ECA-covered funding will rise. Poten’s LNG lender ranking includes bank funds that are insured by ECAs against commercial and political risk and funds that are supplied without ECA cover. ECA-covered bank funding in LNG project finance in 2022-2025 was absent or low because these years were dominated by deals in OECD countries, the US and Australia, so ECAs were not needed.
This excerpt is taken from Poten’s LNG Finance in World Markets. Complete the form below to learn more or request a trial.