Alaska’s $44 billion natural gas pipeline dream faces financial and environmental reality check

Alaska is betting big on a massive natural gas pipeline project that could become one of the largest infrastructure undertakings in U.S. history, but the $44 billion gamble is raising serious questions about financial viability and environmental consequences.

The proposed 800-mile pipeline would transport liquefied natural gas from Alaska’s North Slope to Cook Inlet for export, with strong backing from the Trump administration. Energy Secretary Chris Wright recently toured the region, calling oil workers “the greatest liberators in human history” and expressing support for federal loan guarantees. However, major oil companies like ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil have already walked away from the project over the past decade, citing steep costs and uncertain economics.

The state has already poured at least $600 million into planning and design, despite having no firm commitments from buyers. In a controversial no-bid deal, Alaska handed a 75 percent stake to Glenfarne Group, a private energy firm that has never operated an LNG export terminal. The company promises the pipeline will reduce Alaskans’ energy costs, but local utilities dispute this claim, arguing the oversized system would actually increase rates without international buyers.

Environmental concerns add another layer of complexity. The pipeline could generate 1.5 gigatons of emissions over 30 years while threatening endangered species like Cook Inlet beluga whales. Climate scientists warn that thawing permafrost along the proposed route poses significant construction and operational risks. Eight young Alaskans are suing the state, arguing the project violates Alaska’s constitutional requirement to manage natural resources sustainably. With steel costs up 66 percent and no binding purchase agreements in place, critics question whether this decades-old dream will ever become profitable reality.