The Alaska LNG project, a joint venture between Glenfarne and the state of Alaska, faces a steep climb. Transporting North Slope gas requires a 1,300-kilometre pipeline across permafrost and mountain ranges, with construction limited by narrow seasonal windows. These geographic hurdles drive capital intensity to $2.7 billion per million tonnes of annual capacity—nearly triple the cost of competing projects in Qatar or the US Gulf Coast. Despite Trump’s claims of a $50 billion Korean commitment, Seoul’s current position remains limited to a non-binding review.

South Korea faces a strategic dilemma. While the shorter transit time from Alaska’s Nikiski terminal—roughly 10 days compared to the month-long voyage from the Gulf Coast—offers a clear logistical advantage, the market is already shifting. The expansion of LNG Canada provides Pacific-based supply without the need for the massive upfront capital risks inherent in the Alaska pipeline. Furthermore, Korea’s own domestic demand is cooling under net-zero policies and a recent pivot back to coal. Faced with these economic realities, Seoul is likely to prioritize alternative, lower-risk energy investments, such as enhanced oil recovery projects, to satisfy Washington’s trade demands without tethering its future to the uncertain economics of Arctic gas.