You must log in or register to comment.

Ineludible_Ruin t1_j5tofrk wrote

$5 says they didn't have that many companies trying to get financing from them anyway compared to others. At the very least, that means more business for other banks at the end of the day. Money talks.


razpotim t1_j5u6zrr wrote

I don't know how to say this on uplifting news without breaking the rules, but DB is a notoriously callous bank. I guess the good news is that even a bank as awful as this sees financial upside in this type of policy?


wererealcheesepeople t1_j5ue0m9 wrote

Are you thinking of Deutsche Bank?

I know virtually nothing about Danske Bank except that they are Danish. Deutsche Bank, notoriously shitty, is German.


razpotim t1_j5ufs9q wrote

I am unfortunately not thinking of Deutsche Bank.

I am Danish, everyone hates Danske Bank.


wererealcheesepeople t1_j5ugo4f wrote

Interesting, have any links about why?


cummerou1 t1_j5uqplm wrote

One example of how they are:

Putins brother used them to launder billions, they claimed they didn't know he was related to Putin despite his brothers' last name ALSO BEING PUTIN!

So they had a guy with the last name Putin who wanted to send billions through the bank, and they didn't think it sounded the least bit suspicious that a Russian man with the last name "Putin" had access to so much money, so they didn't do any form of background check to see where this money was actually coming from or who he was.

Oh yeah, during this entire time (a solid 8-10 year period), whistleblowers repeatedly said that this was extremely suspicious and alerted their bosses about it, but were told it was fine and to shut up.


gnarlin t1_j5v9sau wrote

Let me guess, at no point during that entire time did anyone from the government do anything about this incredibly suspicious activity?


razpotim t1_j5uh6x8 wrote


THE_IRL_JESUS t1_j5uq1ab wrote

Every bank has compliance failures. It's part of the business. Danske aren't considered exceptional in this regard.


bananalord666 t1_j5uxdzn wrote

My local union doesn't

Edit: credit union


THE_IRL_JESUS t1_j5v86pr wrote

A) how exactly do you know that? I can guarantee you your local building society does not have as robust of an AFC control framework as Danske

B) it's hardly comparable. Obviously talking about established financial institutions here.


mgcarley t1_j5v2eeo wrote

"What sets us apart from other banks is that other banks are banks!"


bananalord666 t1_j5v4tx9 wrote

My local credit union serves the same function to me, but better.


mgcarley t1_j5v4xqk wrote

My comment may or may not have been a Family Guy reference ;)


bananalord666 t1_j5x1yy9 wrote

Ah. I only know the most basic of family guy quips and memes


half3clipse t1_j5ul48s wrote

It's more likely to do with new projects just not being a good investment anymore.

Projects that have a short time to generate profit after the first major dollar spend also have high operating costs and are in general financially precarious. 2020 made a lot of banks concerned about the reliability of those projects as investments.

More stable projects on the other hand (eg offshore oil) are massive money sinks, and take a long time to start generating profit. They've historically been a reliable investment, but right now a multi billion dollar investment in fossil fuel generation that will take years to even start production and then even more years to generate profit is not looking good. You're not going to fun those projects unless you're really confident it'll pay out more than a decade in the future. Right now it's not clear they will. Even the big petro companies are no longer blue chips, smaller companies died like flies over the last 5 years.

Petro companies also aren't interested in taking on debt the same way they used to. For a long time it was assumed that any amount of supply could be met by rising demand, and in turn that any hole in the ground would pay for itself. It was seen as a very safe investment unless you mismanaged the project entirely. 2020 changed that view dramatically and lots of projects funded on credit had to be closed down because they were no longer profitable to run. Today those companies don't expect new holes in the ground to always pay for itself, and instead aim to fund expansion projects based on their current income and not bet so heavily on future income from new production.

The reality is that the era of "Drill baby Drill" is over, and that it was infact never really a good idea anyways (see again, 2020). There's far less demand for financing, and the details around what demand is left are more complex. Every bank has fewer petro companies looking to them for financing, and we're probbaly going to see more of this over time. The only banks that will still offer funding will be the ones who want to maintain increasingly specialized departments for handling fossil fuel investments instead of redirecting that effort and overhead to other fields.


SilverNicktail t1_j5ur5f3 wrote

>It's more likely to do with new projects just not being a good investment anymore.

That in itself is pretty great?


half3clipse t1_j5uv33n wrote

Sure. Well kinda. Obviously things are complicated. Positive in that it ultimately means petro companies have given up on overtly fighting change and are now preparing to weather it.

It's more that the other poster seem to be under the impression that this just means more money for other banks and Danske Bank is doing this because they specifically aren't making much on it. This means there's 'less' money for oil going around period. Especially compared to a decade ago where you barely had to convince a bank you could actually break ground to get financing.


SilverNicktail t1_j5uvw1u wrote

> Positive in that it ultimately means petro companies have given up on overtly fighting change and are now preparing to weather it.

I think that's certainly the case for more than a few of them. One of the better EV charger networks in the UK is run by BP of all people. That's a sign to me that they're at least looking for what comes next, even if they're dragging their feet.


friendly-sam t1_j5v3a3a wrote

This sounds like marketing from the bank. It's just becoming not profitable in the long term for fossil fuels with the new solar, wind, water power becoming mature and widely acceptable.


[deleted] t1_j5vr25p wrote



Sariel007 t1_j5vu964 wrote

>Literally no one in any large western economy is "working to expand oil and gas extraction."

The State of Wyoming has entered the chat.

Wyoming Wants to Ban Electric Vehicles by 2035 Six Republican legislators introduced a bill to phase out EV sales in the next 12 years.

Wyoming stands up for coal with threat to sue states that refuse to buy it. Republican governor says measure sends message that Wyoming is ‘prepared to bring litigation to protect her interests’.

Oh right you said large economy. Wyoming ranks 50th in GDP and is Republican shithole State welfare Queen that takes more from the Union than it contribute. Uh, carry on then.


One_Large_Dumple t1_j5unw9j wrote

I think, regardless of your thoughts on the bank, this is an indication that Fossil Fuels are not a good investment for the future and banks and businesses are beginning to see that, which is uplifting to me


Sariel007 t1_j5vvo5q wrote

>this is an indication that Fossil Fuels are not a good investment for the future and banks and businesses are beginning to see that

So your telling me the "go woke go broke" crowd is wrong again? Aren't these the same individuals that keep crowing 'Let the free market decide!" While demanding subsidies for corn?


AutoModerator t1_j5t7im5 wrote

Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.

All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


kmr9600 t1_j5vcklp wrote

Working in the industry, I do not see any decline in global drilling. Only where policy makers make it more difficult. As much as anyone wants fossil fuel to go away that will never happen in our lifetime. All the current "green policies" are doing is wiping out the smaller companies and making the asset more valuable for the giants. That never goes good for the common person. Be careful what you wish for.


minilip30 t1_j5vlw78 wrote

The green policies are having a huge impact on oil consumption. US consumption is actually down since 2005, even with a significantly larger population. Decreased consumption is part of the reason we are energy independent right now.

Global oil demand is forecast to peak in the 2030s, so you’re right that it’s not right around the corner. But we will probably transition away from fossil fuels in my lifetime. Certainly in the US, but probably worldwide as well.


DeadFyre t1_j5vf8zs wrote

This is a very dubious strategy. What it does I is to concentrate ownership of fossil fuel industries in the hands of the most ruthlessly irresponsible people, because that's who's left when people who care about the environment divest.


DnDkonto t1_j5vq1iw wrote

Danske Bank are utter shits, so no difference.


XD332 t1_j5v6v8w wrote

Left wingers don’t do anything to alleviate the need for fossil fuels, they just make them harder to get. Then complain when everything costs five times as much as it should.