Here’s GOP Senator-elect Dan Sullivan on Greta Van Susteren, who asks an interesting question about whether or not Keystone Pipeline will lower the price of oil and cut into Alaska’s coffers:
Either this is a new idea for Sullivan, or he wasn’t prepared for the question. I remember asking Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s spokesperson a while back about how Keystone would affect Alaska, and the answer was along the lines of what’s good for the country is good for Alaska, which is a pretty good answer. But still, it might sting if and when that oil comes down Keystone. Even pre-Keystone, the price of oil is tumbling. On Thursday, crude oil traded for less than $75 a barrel for the first time in more than four years. And it looks like the tumble will continue given that Saudi Arabia, increasingly nervous about the shale oil boom in the U.S, is refusing to cut production. In other words, things aren’t looking good for Alaska.
This is from a comment by Lynn Willis on the subject:
We now face the impact of the Saudi’s purposeful suppression of oil prices in North America to make marginal oil prospects untenable as they did with Oil Shale in the 70s. And this move impacted just as Alaska is now depending on the extraction of more marginal oil reservoirs and we must now face the resulting reality that the producers and the state may well not have the available investment capital for projects such as a 65 billion dollar AKLNG project as envisioned in SB138. I am amazed that the first action our new Senatorial delegation wants to do is support the Keystone pipeline will might just lessen demand for Alaskan oil.