????2012年3月那次參觀庫(kù)魯克號(hào)帶給我的個(gè)人感受是,，盡管殼牌公司精心準(zhǔn)備,，防備類(lèi)似英國(guó)石油公司（BP）在墨西哥灣深水地平線鉆井平臺(tái)井噴防護(hù)器失靈事故再度發(fā)生——庫(kù)魯克號(hào)的井噴防護(hù)器具備超強(qiáng)切斷閥門(mén)和精湛的安全性能——但似乎對(duì)阿拉斯加獨(dú)特的天氣條件缺乏準(zhǔn)備。殼牌公司負(fù)責(zé)阿拉斯加海上鉆探項(xiàng)目的副總裁皮特?斯萊比曾在北海工作過(guò),，他相信北海地區(qū)惡劣的條件能讓他自如應(yīng)對(duì)阿拉斯加的狀況,。

????由于石油公司缺乏在北冰洋地區(qū)開(kāi)采的經(jīng)驗(yàn)，很難將北海和北冰洋的開(kāi)采環(huán)境進(jìn)行比較,。但是,，據(jù)鉆井專(zhuān)家介紹，在北冰洋海域鉆探風(fēng)險(xiǎn)更大,。熟悉冰流和極端海洋氣候的阿拉斯加本地人嚴(yán)重質(zhì)疑殼牌公司能否安全操作鉆井和生產(chǎn)平臺(tái),。

????訪問(wèn)庫(kù)魯克號(hào)之前兩天，我來(lái)到美國(guó)最北的市鎮(zhèn)阿拉斯加州巴羅市,，與因紐皮特愛(ài)斯基摩人（Inupiat Eskimo）領(lǐng)袖及北坡自治區(qū)（North Slope Borough）（包括巴羅市和普拉德霍灣油田[Prudhoe Bay]）前區(qū)長(zhǎng)愛(ài)德華?伊塔見(jiàn)面,。伊塔上任初期曾堅(jiān)決反對(duì)海上鉆井采油，但隨著殼牌公司在因紐皮特人年度北極露脊鯨捕獵期暫停鉆井采油等問(wèn)題上同意讓步,，他的立場(chǎng)也開(kāi)始松動(dòng),。

????交談過(guò)程中,，伊塔對(duì)殼牌公司的計(jì)劃及他支持的態(tài)度相當(dāng)糾結(jié)。他坦言經(jīng)常失眠,，擔(dān)心漏油事故會(huì)毀掉族人的漁獵文化,。身為捕鯨船的船長(zhǎng)，伊塔給我講了不少北極颶風(fēng)和冰流的故事,，他認(rèn)為這些自然現(xiàn)象將給位于其行進(jìn)路上的任何鉆井船或固定石油生產(chǎn)平臺(tái)帶來(lái)威脅,。由于沒(méi)有配備內(nèi)部推進(jìn)系統(tǒng)，庫(kù)魯克號(hào)必須通過(guò)拖船才可移動(dòng),，所以更顯脆弱,。

????準(zhǔn)確來(lái)說(shuō)，伊塔并不是反礦石燃料的環(huán)保分子,。北坡自治區(qū)幾乎所有的稅收都來(lái)自開(kāi)采石油和天然氣,，伊塔明白發(fā)現(xiàn)新油田取代產(chǎn)量不斷下滑的普拉德霍灣油田,，對(duì)確保不斷提高巴羅市的生活水平至關(guān)重要,。伊塔認(rèn)為,，在環(huán)保分子視為圣地的北極國(guó)家野生動(dòng)物保護(hù)區(qū)（Arctic National Wildlife Refuge）內(nèi)進(jìn)行陸上石油開(kāi)采，也比在北冰洋波弗特海（Beaufort Sea）和楚科奇海（Chukchi Sea）進(jìn)行海洋石油開(kāi)采更合乎情理,?！霸陉懙厣锨謇碛臀鄹菀仔币了嬖V我說(shuō),?！皟烧唛g的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)更是不可同日而語(yǔ)?！?/p>

????我前往阿拉斯加和西雅圖采訪之前特意致電一位熟識(shí)的能源投資分析師——他在一位持有大量皇家荷蘭殼牌公司股票的基金經(jīng)理手下供職,。上次接觸時(shí)，這位分析師對(duì)殼牌公司的技術(shù)能力和在科研方面投入大筆資金的英明決策大加贊賞,。意識(shí)到他對(duì)殼牌公司的情愫后,，我問(wèn)這名分析師對(duì)殼牌公司阿拉斯加計(jì)劃的看法。他的回答讓我吃驚,。

????“依我看,，”那位分析師當(dāng)時(shí)這樣說(shuō)?！斑@看起來(lái)像一家經(jīng)營(yíng)不錯(cuò)的公司做出的錯(cuò)誤決定,。”他并不懷疑阿拉斯加石油儲(chǔ)量或擔(dān)心造成環(huán)境災(zāi)難,。他的擔(dān)憂頗具戰(zhàn)略眼光：短暫的夏季開(kāi)采期（海冰消融露出寬闊的海面）,，留給殼牌公司犯錯(cuò)的時(shí)間不多,，同時(shí)也讓殼牌公司按時(shí)掙到投資回報(bào)的難度變得更大。

????One personal takeaway from my March 2012 tour of the Kulluk was that while Shell seemed incredibly well-prepared for avoiding a repeat of the blowout protector failure that doomed BP's Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico -- the Kulluk's blowout protector boasts a extra cut-off valve and other state-of-the-art safety features -- Shell seemed less worried about the unique weather conditions in Alaska. Pete Slaiby, the Shell executive in charge of the Alaskan offshore drilling project, used to work in the North Sea, and Slaiby believed the harsh conditions in the North Sea helped prepare him for what his crews would face in Alaska.

????Comparing drilling conditions in the North Sea to those in the Arctic Ocean is difficult because oil companies have so little experience drilling in the Arctic. But the drilling experts I spoke with expected the Arctic to be much more challenging. Also, Native Alaskans familiar with ice flows and extreme offshore weather had serious doubts about Shell's ability to safely operate drilling rigs and production platforms.

????Two days before my Kulluk tour, I traveled to Barrow, Alaska, the northern-most municipality in the U.S., to meet with Edward Itta, an Inupiat Eskimo leader and the former mayor of the North Slope Borough (which includes Barrow as well as the Prudhoe Bay oil hub). Itta had started his mayoral term as a staunch opponent of offshore drilling but eventually softened his stance after Shell agreed to concessions such as halting drilling during the Inupiat's annual bowhead whale hunt.

????During our conversations, Itta was obviously quite conflicted about Shell's plans and about his own decision to endorse them. He confided he was having a hard time sleeping, fearful that an oil spill could destroy his people's hunting-and-fishing culture. A whaling-boat captain himself, Itta told me stories of Arctic hurricanes and crushing ice flows he thought would pose a threat to any drilling ships or permanent oil-production platforms in their paths. The Kulluk seemed especially vulnerable since it has no internal propulsion system and had to be towed in order to be moved.

????For the record, Itta is not some anti-fossil-fuel greenie. Nearly all the North Slope's tax revenues derive from oil and gas production, and Itta understands that finding new oil to replace the declining production out of Prudhoe Bay will be crucial to maintaining the improved standard of living in Barrow. But in Itta's view, it makes more sense to allow onshore drilling in ANWR (a.k.a. the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -- sacred ground for many environmentalists) than to proceed with offshore drilling in the Arctic Ocean's Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. "You can clean up oil so much easier onshore," Itta told me. "The risks are not even comparable."

????Before my reporting trip to Alaska and Seattle, I called up one of the wiser energy analysts I know -- someone employed by a money manager with a large equity stake in Royal Dutch Shell. On previous occasions, this analyst had expressed admiration for Shell's technological prowess and its large investment in R&D. Aware of his fondness for Shell, I asked the analyst what he thought of Shell's Alaska plans. His answer surprised me.

????"To me," the analyst said at the time, "it looks like a bad decision by an otherwise well-run company." It wasn't that he doubted there was a lot of oil up there or that he feared an environmental catastrophe. His concern was strategic: The short summer drilling season (when sea ice gives way to open water) gave Shell too little margin for error and made it too hard for Shell to earn a timely return on its investment.