世界需要專業性能源銀行 The case for a specialist energy bank

According to the International Energy Agency in their most recent World Outlookthe amount of money required to meet energy needs over the next twenty five years is $51tn. That is in real terms measured in 2013 dollars and amounts to approximately 14 times current German gross domestic product.

根據國際能源署(IEA)最新的《世界能源展望》(World Energy Outlook)報告，未來25年裏，要滿足世界能源需求，總共需要51萬億美元資金。這是按2013年美元匯率計算得出的實際值，相當於德國當前國內生產總值(GDP)的近14倍。

Energy investment as defined by the IEA includes the exploration, production, distribution, transportation and processing of all forms of energy. It includes new ventures and replacement of the existing capital stock. Some $30tn of the total is expected to be devoted to fossil fuel extraction, transportation and oil refining, while most of the remainder goes to the power sector including $7.4tn to renewables and $1.5tn to nuclear; $8.7tn goes to the development of transmission and distribution systems. This is, of course, an indicative forecast built around the IEA’s assumptions of some progress towards emissions reduction. The detail is less important than the total.

IEA對能源投資的定義涵蓋各類能源的勘探、生產、分配、運輸和加工，包括新投資項目和對現有資本存量的置換。IEA預測，所需的51萬億美元投資總額中，約有30萬億美元將投入到化石燃料的開採、運輸和石油精煉方面，而餘下部分中，大多數將投向電力行業，包括向可再生能源領域投入7.4萬億美元，向核電投入1.5萬億美元；還有8.7萬億美元將投入到輸配電系統的建設。當然，這是IEA基於減排將取得進展的假設所做的方向性預測。其總額比細節更加重要。

Energy investment is driven by effective demand — the combination of population numbers (up by 1.5bn to 2bn worldwide over the period ) and by the spread of prosperity. Something like 1bn additional consumers have joined the commercial energy market since the turn of the century. That level of expansion is expected to continue but the forecast is far from utopian. Many hundreds of millions living mainly in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia will still be outside the market and in subsistence lives in 25 years time.

能源投資受到有效需求——也就是人口總數（全世界人口在接下來25年將增加15億到20億）以及繁榮的普及的推動。進入本世紀以後，商業能源市場大約增加了10億消費者。這種擴張速度預計將持續下去，但這一預測離烏托邦的理想境界還很遠。在接下來的25年，主要在撒哈拉以南非洲和南亞地區，還有數億人將生活在商業能源市場之外，維持在最低生活水平。

Behind the big numbers, the scale and diversity of the projects involved is stunning. From long-distance pipelines from central Asia and eastern Siberia to China to new LNG facilities in Australia and east Africa to the establishment of urban electricity and gas grids across the developing world. Fully two-thirds of the estimated $51bn requirement comes from the non-OECD emerging market economies of the world. And that is where the problems begin. It seems dangerously likely that while some projects will easily collect the necessary capital, many others will struggle because the pay-back periods are too long for capital markets, which are focused on short-term returns and rigid capital adequacy requirements, and because of perceived risks about political change, insecurity and in some areas corruption.

在這些大數字背後，相關項目的規模和多樣性令人驚訝。既有從中亞和西伯利亞東部到中國的長距離管線、澳大利亞和東非的新液化天然氣設備，也有各個發展中國家城市輸電網和天然氣管網的建造項目。預測的51萬億美元資金需求中，整整三分之二將來自非經合組織(OECD)成員的新興市場經濟體。這也是問題所在。極有可能出現的情況是，一些項目將很容易募集到所需資金，而其他許多項目則難以募集資金，因爲對重視短期回報和嚴格的資本充足要求的資本市場來說，這些項目的投資回報期太長。此外，政治變遷、不安全局勢和（某些地區的）腐敗等風險也會影響項目的融資。

Of course, many projects will be state funded — directly or through state-owned companies. Others will be funded directly out of the resources of the big private sector players such as Exxon and Shell.

當然，許多項目將由國家出資——國家直接出資或者通過國有企業出資。其他項目則直接由埃克森(Exxon)或者殼牌(Shell)等大型私營企業出資。

But even taking account of all that an enormous sum remains to be found year by year to fund the smaller businesses involved and to meet the needs of countries that do not have the deep pockets of nations such as China.

但即使把這些都算上，要爲較小規模的相關企業提供資金，以及滿足不如中國財力雄厚的國家的需求，每年仍需籌集總數龐大的資金。

To ensure that energy is available to as many people as possible, we need to match supply and demand for capital by creating some new institutions that understand and are equipped to deal with the timescales and the risks involved.

要保證能源能夠滿足儘可能多的人的需求，我們需要創建一些對能源項目耗時及相關風險十分了解，並有能力應對這些問題的新機構，從而使資金的供給和需求達到匹配。

It is easy to forget that banks used to be specialist institutions devoted to specific topics or particular geographies. Even the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank began as a set of institutions devoted to two of the great centres of economic activity in Asia. Banks provided expert services to niche markets such as railway developments across the world in the 19th century, or the agricultural sectors in Europe and the US. Credit Agricole began life in the Jura region of France providing short-term loans as advances against the coming harvest. Standard Bank, now part of Standard Chartered, was founded to meet the needs of the gold and diamond field developers in the Cape Province of South Africa in the 1860s. Others were created as part of the process of independence for particular countries in the post-colonial era. Such focus seems to have been almost lost.

我們很容易忘記，在過去，銀行是針對特定問題或特定地域提供服務的專業化機構。即使是香港上海匯豐銀行(HSBC)，最開始也是一系列專注於亞洲兩大經濟活動中心的機構。19世紀，銀行爲世界各地的鐵路修建等特定領域，或者爲歐洲和美國的農業提供專業服務。法國農業信貸銀行(Credit Agricole)最初是在法國汝拉地區(Jura)專門向農民提供短期貸款的機構，以滿足農民在收穫季節到來前的資金需求。現在是渣打銀行(Standard Chartered)一部分的標準銀行(Standard Bank)，成立初衷是爲了滿足19世紀60年代南非開普省(Cape Province)金礦和鑽石礦場開發商的需求。還有一些銀行是在後殖民時代一些國家尋求獨立的過程中成立的。如今這種經營重心似乎已幾近消失。

Some of the old names remain in place but many banks ( especially the biggest ) now claim to be able to cover everything. The coverage though is too often thin and unsatisfactory. I have yet to come across a major bank that really understands the energy business in depth.

一些歷史悠久的銀行依然不改初衷，但許多銀行（尤其是那些最大的銀行）現在聲稱其業務可以涵蓋一切領域。這種覆蓋往往不夠深入，並不令人滿意。我還沒有遇到一家真正深入瞭解能源行業的大型銀行。

The conglomerate banks understand products and processes — such as the trading of assets up to and including the lucrative business of mergers and acquisitions. But it is not clear that they understand what is being bought and sold. They would not, I think, even claim to have a grip on the complexities of energy investment in Iraq, or Tanzania or Colombia. Could they seriously distinguish between photovoltaics and solar thermal technology? Or explain the challenge of nuclear decommissioning in Germany? No.

綜合性銀行理解產品和流程——比如各類資產交易，包括利潤豐厚的併購業務。但它們是否理解交易的標的就不清楚了。我認爲，綜合性銀行甚至都無法宣稱自己理解在伊拉克、坦桑尼亞或者哥倫比亞進行能源投資的複雜性。它們能夠真正區分光伏和太陽熱能技術嗎？或者解釋德國核設施退役的挑戰？不，它們不能。

This weakness needs to be corrected. The urgent need of the next decade is to direct capital where it is required on terms that satisfy investors. That requires an institution that can understand and interpret risk and opportunity to the holders of funds. Investors require confidence above all that what they are being offered matches their own requirements. Some will want the short-term returns of a gas-fired power station. Others will be happy with the long-term steady income from infrastructure investments or be ready to take some bets on the opportunities arising from the academic work on energy storage. It would be ridiculous to expect fund managers to hold such knowledge or to be able to keep pace with everything that is happening. They need expert advice and the banks as configured cannot provide it. The net result is that investors find it all too difficult and shy away.

這一弱點必須糾正。下一個十年的迫切需求是在使投資者滿意的條件下，將資金引導到需要的地方。這需要一個能夠理解風險和機會，並向資金持有者解釋這些情況的機構。投資者最需要的是信心，相信提供給他們的投資項目與他們自身的要求相匹配。一些人希望從天然氣火電站項目獲得短期回報，還有一些人則希望從基礎建設投資中獲得長期穩定收入，或者有意願押注能源儲存相關的學術工作所蘊含的機會。指望基金管理公司掌握這樣的知識，或者能夠實時瞭解所發生的一切情況是荒謬的。這些項目需要專業的建議，而按當前目的設立的銀行無法提供這種建議。最終結果是投資者覺得事情太過困難而避開了這些項目。

Of course, there is a case for more than one energy bank. The sector is now too vast and too global for even the best institution to hold all the knowledge necessary. But the opportunities are immense — $51tn is not a trivial sum. There is a case for new banks and for spin offs from the existing institutions. There is a strong and essential role for governments in setting the policy framework and in perhaps in acting as a guarantor or lender of last resort for the most complex projects but the new institutions should be run on private and commercial lines. And who knows, perhaps a return to a banking system built on deep knowledge — of markets and technology and companies — could even begin to restore the idea that, far from being parasites, banking and the financial sector as a whole were actually useful and valuable contributors to society.

當然，有理由設立不止一家能源銀行。這個行業太過龐大，全球化程度太高，即使是最好的機構也無法掌握所有需要具備的知識。但這個行業蘊含巨大的機會——51萬億美元不是一個小數目。有理由設立新的銀行，或者從現有機構中分拆出一些部分。政府可以在制定政策框架方面發揮巨大而重要的作用，或者在最複雜的項目中擔任最後的擔保人或者貸款人，但新的機構應該是按照商業規則運作的私營機構。誰知道呢，重新深入瞭解市場、技術和企業的銀行體系，甚至有可能開始恢復一種觀念——銀行以及整個金融行業絕非寄生蟲，而是實際上對社會做出了有用和寶貴的貢獻。