为什么说美国的“能源自主”是个伪命题

贝萨尼•麦克莱恩是一名专门研究财务可持续性问题的专家，安然事件、2008年金融危机和美国的“两房”危机都是她研究的课题。麦克莱恩曾在《财富》供职、现任《名利场》特约编辑。在她的新书《沙特美国：页岩气的真相以及它如何改变了世界》中，她指出，美国的页岩气革命和所谓的能源自主很可能是个伪命题。《财富》近日采访了这位明星作家。

你曾经写过很多方面的书，包括安然欺诈案、金融危机的根源、住房金融体系的缺陷等等，现在你又在写页岩气方面的内容。你为什么选择这个话题？

我觉得在主流媒体上，页岩气没有得到足够的报道。硅谷里有很多改变世界的发明，但水力压裂技术是一项对我们的未来至关重要的发明。如果水力压裂法真的有效，美国将成为一个石油和天然气的生产大国，那么这甚至有可能改变美国的制造业基础和地缘政治体系。当媒体报道水力压裂技术时，他们通常是从环境的角度来报道，这个角度很有趣，也很重要。但我知道很多人之所以看空水力压裂技术，首先是因为那些公司的经济状况不佳，而媒体从未从财务角度对这个问题予以足够的报道。而我是一个相信数据的人。

你用大量细节论证了页岩气革命的影响和意义，并称它可能使美国进入一个能源充足的新时代。但你也表示，页岩气革命很可能被炒得过热了，有可能最终成为一个“纸牌屋”。为什么这么说？

有几个原因。一是整个行业还没有盈利。造成这个现象的原因有很多，比如低利率，比如相信未来总会有回报，等等，否则华尔街为什么还要持续向水力压力技术公司投入资金呢？但你不能确定这种情况会永远持续下去。如果现在没有新的资金注入，油气公司只能用自己的现金流去重复投资，那么他们至少得生产多少油气？更何况他们还需要给股东创造一些利润。

其二，所谓的“能源自主”是一个伪命题。有一种观点认为，如果我们不再需要中东的能源，我们就可以在某种程度上忽略中东了。但在全球经济中，这种观点是非常荒谬的。我在书中引用了一些分析数据，说明了我们的科技产业有多少比例的零部件需要在亚洲生产——这些零部件都依赖中东地区的石油。那种认为只要我们自己能钻油，就可以让沙特滚蛋的看法，是非常愚蠢的。

另外，我曾经和几个私募大佬交流过，他们的看法让我非常震惊。他们都想知道什么时候能看见石油时代的终结，因为他们认为，过不了太久，石油价格就会永远陷入衰退（就像当年的煤炭一样）。而中国等国正在疯狂地投资可再生能源。美国如果沉迷在虚幻的“石油大国”的迷梦里，而不去发展可再生能源，结果就会丧失在这一领域成为全球领导者的机会。

你指出，最该为“页岩气泡沫”负责的，不是新技术和新发现，而是华尔街。你还把页岩气公司的高估值比作当年的“互联网泡沫”。你能解释一下吗？

造成这种现状的原因，是页岩气公司的估值并不取决于其收益，其高管的薪资也不与股东回报率挂钩。现在的页岩气公司不管盈利与否，其估值都已达到了他们所拥有的油田价值和产量水平的好几倍，各家页岩气公司CEO的薪资水平也主要取决于产量。这都让我们想起了“互联网泡沫”时代的“眼球估值”。这些估值听起来是合乎逻辑的，但实际上并不合理。

你为什么选择奥布里•麦克伦登作为主要人物，来讲述美国页岩气的故事？

麦克伦登是位几十年一遇的人才。他改变了世界——但却是以一种很有争议的方式。早在大家知道水力压裂法会带来环保问题之前，就有很多人不看好他的公司了。我大概从2010年左右开始注意他。我的一名长期“线人”约翰•亨普顿跟我说，麦克伦登是美国最重要的一个人（当然这话有些夸张），因为如果他的商业模式成功了，那么美国将成为全球能源成本最低的国家之一。这次对我们的制造业基础产生巨大影响，并将极大地冲击地缘政治格局。但当时我们还不知道他的商业模式是否管用。

然而到了2015和2016年，美国的页岩气一度到了岌岌可危的境地。2016年，麦克伦登死于一场惨烈的车祸，页岩气的命运更是跌到了谷底。但是后来，页岩气却无视所有怀疑论者，浴火重生了。美国石油和天然气的预期产量再次开始飙升。

我想知道，麦克伦登是否是这个行业的一个象征？他的故事能否解答一个至关重要的问题：水力压裂法在经济上和环境上是否具有可持续性？

在你写这本书的过程中，你走了很多地方，采访了很多人物。是否有哪次旅程或采访让你觉得特别丰富多彩或是有启发性？

有很多，印象最深的一次是去得克萨斯州的米德兰。你极目远眺，看见的只有油井和风车，这真是一种奇怪的组合。我也采访了一些老石油工人，其中有些人对水力压裂法持怀疑态度，但也有些人对其深信不疑。它给米德兰甚至休斯顿等地带来了相当惊人的经济复苏。要看当地经济是繁荣和萧条，只要看在奥德萨的一家脱衣舞俱乐部里点一次大腿舞的价格就知道了。

有一次我和一位搞水力压裂的企业家坐在一起，他指着我的iPhone说：“你喜欢这个东西吗？要知道，如果没有我们在做的事，也就不会有它了。”他的意思是，现代世界中，很多东西的运行都离不开能源。能源就像我们呼吸的空气，我们认为它的存在是理所当然的。这也是环保主义者为什么那么讨厌油气公司。我并不是评价谁对谁错，只是说跳出这个维度看事物是很有趣的。

在书的结尾，你引用了查理•芒格的话说：“进口石油不是你的敌人，而是你的朋友。”他为什么要这么说？你同意他的意见吗？

他说，石油和天然气之所以被称为不可再生能源，是有其原因的。页岩气给了我们更多的时间，但它不能永远解决问题。芒格认为，在化肥等产品中，碳氢化合物仍然是一种必不可少且不可替代的元素，也就是说如果没有它们，我们根本无法养活这样巨大的人口。当然，有一天我们也许会发现能代替石油的东西，但至少现在我们还没有发现有什么能代替石油。那么既然我们还没有找到石油的替代品，我们为什么还要强撑面子高喊能源自主呢？我们为什么不从其他国家那些购买我们需要的东西，把自己的原油储备用在以后的艰难的日子呢？我很赞同这种看法。（财富中文网）

译者：朴成奎

Bethany McLean has made a career out of shining a light on the financially unsustainable, from Enron to the 2008 financial crisis to U.S. mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In her latest book, Saudi America: The Truth About Fracking and How it’s Changing the World, McLean—previously of Fortune and now a contributing editor at Vanity Fair—suggests that just like Enron, the U.S. fracking boom and America’s much-heralded hope for energy independence may be too good to be true. Fortune recently spoke with its former star writer.

You’ve written about— among many other things—the fraud of Enron, the root causes of the financial crisis, the flaws in homeownership finance, and now fracking. Why did you choose this topic?

I always felt fracking wasn’t covered enough in the mainstream media. For all the world-changing things that are happening in Silicon Valley, what’s happening in places like the Permian Basin is every bit as important to our future – arguably more so. If fracking is real, and America is an oil and gas powerhouse, that changes everything from our manufacturing base to geopolitics. When fracking was covered, it was usually from an environmental perspective. That’s interesting and important, but I knew many short sellers who were skeptical of fracking companies due to their bad economics, and the financial angle never got the press I felt it deserved. I’m a numbers girl at heart!

You chronicle in great detail the scope and significance of the current shale oil boom, and how it’s led to the promise of a new era of American energy abundance. But you also say the shale revolution might be overhyped and potentially a house of cards. Why?

There are a few reasons. One is that the industry, as a whole, has yet to make money. There are a bunch of reasons, from low interest rates to a belief that returns lie ahead, why Wall Street has continued to throw capital at fracking companies. But you can’t be sure that will continue forever. It’s unclear how much oil and gas companies would produce if they could only reinvest their own cash flow, let alone if they had to produce a decent return for shareholders.

The second reason is that the whole notion of “energy independence” is very fraught. There’s this idea that if we don’t need energy from the Middle East, we’ll somehow be able to ignore the Middle East. But in a global economy, that’s absurd. For instance, I cite some analysis showing what percentage of the components our technology industry needs are made in Asia – which in turn is dependent on oil from, you guessed it, the Middle East. The idea that we’d be able to tell Saudi Arabia to go to hell if we didn’t need their oil is pretty silly once you drill (no pun intended) into it.

Lastly, I was really struck by conversations I had with several private equity players. They are all trying to figure out when we’ll be able to see the end of the oil age, because as soon as that happens, the price of oil will go into secular decline (as it did with coal.) Other countries, namely China, are frantically investing in renewables. For us to crow about our oil wealth, and not focus on renewables, is for us to miss the opportunity to be leaders in the world as it’s going to be.

You argue that the entity most responsible for the fracking boom is not new technology or new discoveries, but rather Wall Street, and you compare the way fracking companies are valued to the first dot-com boom. Can you explain that?

What’s made this whole thing work is that fracking companies aren’t valued on earnings. Nor are executives compensated for producing returns for shareholders. Fracking companies have been valued as a multiple of the acreage they own, or on their level of production, regardless of whether it’s profitable or not. CEOs have been compensated based primarily on production. It’s analogous to the way dotcom companies were valued on multiples of eyeballs. It all sounds logical until it doesn’t.

Why did you choose Aubrey McClendon as the main character through which to tell the story of fracking in the U.S.?

McClendon is one of those rare, larger than life characters who come along every so often. He was changing the world—but in ways that were very controversial. Long before everyone knew fracking was an environmental concern, short sellers were all over McClendon’s company. I started paying attention to him around 2010 or so. A longtime source of mine, a guy named John Hempton, would tell me that Aubrey was the most important man in America (with some degree of hyperbole) because if his business model worked, it meant that America had one of the lowest costs for energy around the world. That has huge implications for our manufacturing base, and it affects geopolitics enormously.But it wasn’t clear his business model did work.

All of that was before the 2015-16 bust that looked like it would destroy American fracking—and before McClendon’s spectacular death in a car crash in the spring of 2016, right at the bottom. It seemed like the punctuation mark underscoring the end of fracking. And then, like the proverbial phoenix, fracking came back, defying all the skeptics. And the projections for U.S. oil and natural gas production began to soar again.

I wanted to figure out if McClendon was or wasn’t emblematic of the industry as a way of getting at a question that I think is key for our future: How sustainable—financially, not environmentally—is fracking?

You traveled far and wide and spoke with many characters as you reported this book. Was there a trip you took or a conversation you had that stands out for being particularly colorful or enlightening?

There were so many, but I really enjoyed getting to see Midland, Texas. As you fly in, there’s nothing but drilling rigs and windmills as far as the eye can see. It’s an odd juxtaposition. I also met some old time oil men, some of whom were skeptical of fracking, and some of whom were total believers. The economic revitalization it has brought to places like Midland and even Houston is pretty stunning, and one way to chronicle boom and bust is the price of a lap dance at the strip club in Odessa.

I remember sitting with one fracking entrepreneur who tapped my iPhone and said, “You like that thing? You realize that it wouldn’t exist without what we do,” by which he meant that so much of our modern world literally runs on energy. But energy is like the air we breathe: We take it for granted. All that helps explain why the oil and gas industry can be so irked by environmentalists. I’m not arguing that that’s right, just that it’s interesting to get outside our bubble.

Toward the end of the book you quote Charlie Munger saying, “Imported oil isn’t your enemy. It’s your friend.” Why does he say that—and do you agree with him?

He says that because oil and gas are called non-renewables for a reason! Shale has bought us more time, but it doesn’t buy us forever. Munger’s argument is that hydrocarbons are still an essential and irreplaceable element in products like fertilizers, meaning that we wouldn’t be able to feed our population without them. Sure, there might be a replacement one day. But there isn’t yet. So the security of our nation depends on the continued availability of oil. Why, in the absence of any certainty about what will replace hydrocarbons, should we continue to burn through our existing supply so that we can beat our chest over the mythical notion of energy independence? Why not import what we need from others, and save our supply for the proverbial rainy day? It makes perfect sense to me.