Two things:
The Alaska Pipeline ends in Valdez. From there, all oil is transhipped on tankers, the same way oil is shipped from Russia today. How does this proposal make it easier to ship oil to the US?
Russia sells all its exportable oil on the world market. If the US, China or Europe wants it, they can already buy it. Russia has no need to widen their customer base.
It plugs into the existing USA distribution system
Russia seems to like pipelines
By oil tanker only. Which the Russians already have access to.
It was explained earlier:
In other words the planet might go to hell, but think of the profits!
Given that such a tunnel is probably a ten year project, do you not consider it likely that the USA will extend its pipelines ?
To me the only rational reason for a tunnel is for NG and oil, a sort of Baltic pipeline into the USA rather than Germany.
No, because it is not economically desireable. The only reason the Alaska Pipeline was built was because there was no year round tanker access to Prudhoe Bay. It is cheaper to transport by tanker than to build a pipeline. Tankers are more flexible; they can go to and from any port, as oil supplies shift. Pipelines are only useful so long as there is supply on one end, and demand on the other. When that changes, they become expensive white elephants.
If you know more about the economics of crude and NG transportation then elucidate.
My understanding is that the spot market has little to do with the real price of crude or NG - and that people are trying to stitch up ‘revenue sharing’ long term contracts.
One does not have to be an expert to understand that if it were economically viable to have a pipeline between Alaska and the Lower 48, one would already exist.
Whatever 
(Memo to self: Frank is not exactly temporarily aware - euphemism for cretin or just try to explain that there are time lags ? )
What part of no personal insults in GD do you need to be reminded about?
Back off and do not do this again.
[ /Moderating ]
Oops - double screw up, getting snarky with a mod and breaking the rules.
@Frank Times change, what was not economically or politically viable five years ago, could be very desireable now - and even more so in 10 years.
If this tunnel thing is not just a silly season invention, then my view is that it is for an oil and NG pipeline, which would be handy for the USA should the Middle East implode.
An Alaska - USA pipeline would be a lot more desireable and viable if the USA was getting, say, 70% of its oil from Russia. It would also be handy if it went near the Canadian oil shale deposits.
I’m not too well up on the benefits of pipelines versus tankers, but I can see that one could land up with a sudden shortage of tankers - which would not happen with a well maintained pipeline.
For example we, in the UK, got hit with a NG shortage because the Norway - UK pipeline was not finished and Russia had a spat with The Ukraine. One would have thought that LNG tankers would have solved the problem, but it seems that Italy and Spain had contracted up the capacity.