????2012年3月那次參觀庫魯克號帶給我的個人感受是，盡管殼牌公司精心準備，防備類似英國石油公司（BP）在墨西哥灣深水地平線鉆井平臺井噴防護器失靈事故再度發生——庫魯克號的井噴防護器具備超強切斷閥門和精湛的安全性能——但似乎對阿拉斯加獨特的天氣條件缺乏準備。殼牌公司負責阿拉斯加海上鉆探項目的副總裁皮特?斯萊比曾在北海工作過，他相信北海地區惡劣的條件能讓他自如應對阿拉斯加的狀況。

????由于石油公司缺乏在北冰洋地區開采的經驗，很難將北海和北冰洋的開采環境進行比較。但是，據鉆井專家介紹，在北冰洋海域鉆探風險更大。熟悉冰流和極端海洋氣候的阿拉斯加本地人嚴重質疑殼牌公司能否安全操作鉆井和生產平臺。

????訪問庫魯克號之前兩天，我來到美國最北的市鎮阿拉斯加州巴羅市，與因紐皮特愛斯基摩人（Inupiat Eskimo）領袖及北坡自治區（North Slope Borough）（包括巴羅市和普拉德霍灣油田[Prudhoe Bay]）前區長愛德華?伊塔見面。伊塔上任初期曾堅決反對海上鉆井采油，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題上同意讓步，他的立場也開始松動。

????交談過程中，伊塔對殼牌公司的計劃及他支持的態度相當糾結。他坦言經常失眠，擔心漏油事故會毀掉族人的漁獵文化。身為捕鯨船的船長，伊塔給我講了不少北極颶風和冰流的故事，他認為這些自然現象將給位于其行進路上的任何鉆井船或固定石油生產平臺帶來威脅。由于沒有配備內部推進系統，庫魯克號必須通過拖船才可移動，所以更顯脆弱。

????準確來說，伊塔并不是反礦石燃料的環保分子。北坡自治區幾乎所有的稅收都來自開采石油和天然氣，伊塔明白發現新油田取代產量不斷下滑的普拉德霍灣油田，對確保不斷提高巴羅市的生活水平至關重要。伊塔認為，在環保分子視為圣地的北極國家野生動物保護區（Arctic National Wildlife Refuge）內進行陸上石油開采，也比在北冰洋波弗特海（Beaufort Sea）和楚科奇海（Chukchi Sea）進行海洋石油開采更合乎情理。“在陸地上清理油污更容易些，”伊塔告訴我說。“兩者間的風險更是不可同日而語。”

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

????“依我看，”那位分析師當時這樣說。“這看起來像一家經營不錯的公司做出的錯誤決定。”他并不懷疑阿拉斯加石油儲量或擔心造成環境災難。他的擔憂頗具戰略眼光：短暫的夏季開采期（海冰消融露出寬闊的海面），留給殼牌公司犯錯的時間不多，同時也讓殼牌公司按時掙到投資回報的難度變得更大。

????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.