Alaska now has two competing visions for getting North Slope natural gas to Asia, and one of them has faced questions since October 23, when the FT and the NYT published its ex-CEO’s claim that Russia’s Novatek was funding it. Polar LNG wants to liquefy gas at the Arctic coast and ship it on ice-class tankers. The older Alaska LNG project, led by developer Glenfarne with the state as a partner, would pipe the gas roughly 800 miles south first.
Where it stands: As of October 26, neither project had a final investment decision. Polar LNG says it is waiting on Treasury sanctions officials to approve its purchase of a half-finished, Russian-made liquefaction platform, and it is “targeting the start of gas deliveries by the end of 2030.” Alaska LNG is waiting on financing after South Korea said it had not committed to the investment President Trump announced on September 30.
The financing allegation comes from former CEO Joel Riddle, and every company involved rejects it. Polar LNG called Riddle “a disgruntled former employee” and said its development activities “are being pursued in full compliance with applicable U.S. laws.” Novatek said it signed an April memorandum with the operating company and that “requisite approvals will need to be obtained from US and Russian authorities.” Abu Dhabi-based Tech Wave, which Polar LNG says has provided its financing, told the FT that Novatek holds no stake in it. Business Standard noted no U.S. authority “has publicly established that the alleged financing constituted a sanctions violation.” This article sets the allegation aside to compare the two business plans; the dispute itself is covered in our main Novatek Alaska report.
Polar LNG vs. Alaska LNG at a glance
| Polar LNG | Alaska LNG | |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Polar Train LNG; Tech Wave financing, per company | Glenfarne 75%, state 25% |
| Route | Nearshore plant, ice-class tankers | 807-mile pipeline to Nikiski |
| Liquefaction | Gravity-based structure | Onshore plant (Phase Two) |
| Size | 7 million tons/yr, first phase | 20 MTPA at full build |
| Reported cost | $8-9B first phase; $25B per FT | $44B long-run estimate; up to $54.5B |
| Target | Gas by end of 2030 | In-state gas late 2029 (Glenfarne goal) |
| Federal status | OFAC license pending | DOE export order in place |
How the Polar LNG plan would work
When it launched at the end of March, Polar LNG described a nearshore plant at Prudhoe Bay fed by a short pipeline from existing oil-field infrastructure. Gas would be liquefied on a modular gravity-based structure, and, as Oil & Gas Journal summarized the company’s release, “LNG would then be loaded onto specialized ice-class carriers for year-round export.”
The pitch rests on geography. The company claimed the route offers “one of the shortest LNG shipping routes from North America to key Asian markets, approximately 3,600 miles to Japan compared to over 10,000 miles from the US Gulf Coast.” Riddle told Reuters the company also planned to buy six icebreakers.
Speed was the other selling point. Polar LNG hoped to buy equipment built for Russia’s sanctioned Arctic LNG 2 project, including a partially finished liquefaction unit, which Riddle described to Reuters as Arctic-tested. That purchase is what the pending OFAC application covers.
The cost figures do not line up. Reuters reported at the launch that “the first phase of the project will take $8 billion to $9 billion in investments to produce 7 million tons a year,” with one or two more phases possible. The FT, as summarized by Business Standard, called it “a $25 billion” project. The sources do not explain whether the larger number covers all phases.
Glenfarne’s Alaska LNG: the 807-mile pipeline
Alaska LNG is the latest version of a decades-old idea. In its May 18 release, Glenfarne described the full project as “an 807-mile 42-inch pipeline” that would serve Alaska and “produce 20 MTPA of LNG for export.” It is being built in two phases. Phase One is “the 739-mile, 42-inch pipeline” to bring gas to Southcentral Alaska, where Cook Inlet supplies are declining. Phase Two adds the export plant at Nikiski.
The project already holds a key federal approval. A 2023 Federal Register notice says the Energy Department authorized exports “in a volume equivalent to 929 billion cubic feet (Bcf) per year” to countries without U.S. free trade agreements, from the Nikiski site.
Cost estimates have climbed. ADN reported in January that the in-state pipeline would cost an estimated $11 billion and that the combined cost “has long been estimated at $44 billion.” By October, ADN said Glenfarne put the total at up to $54.5 billion.
Money remains the open question. On September 30 President Trump said South Korea would invest $54 billion, but, as ADN reported, Korean officials said the country “has not committed to investing.” Dunleavy responded: “The president of the United States of America says that they will be investing in the pipeline.” Alaska Public Media cited Reuters reporting that Alaska LNG “could cost roughly twice as much per unit of gas as comparable sources on the U.S. Gulf Coast.”
Skeptics on both North Slope plans
Alaska’s veteran gas analysts have doubts about each approach. On Alaska LNG, Larry Persily told ADN in January: “It seems like we’re building the largest, most expensive gas project in North American history by press release.” Jason Feer of Poten & Partners told Alaska Public Media that so far buyers have not been “willing to pay substantially above market for LNG from Alaska.”
📨 Get Free Accountability Coverage Alerts
Free · No spam · Unsubscribe anytime
On shipping gas straight off the North Slope, the objections are older. In March, discussing a similar tanker-based concept promoted by investor Gentry Beach, ADN quoted Brad Keithley noting that the shallow seafloor makes it hard to reach deep-water tankers: “The economics was always a big issue, and the companies never even got to the permitting.” ADN also recalled that Keith Meyer, a former head of the Alaska LNG project, argued in 2018 that pipeline savings “would vanish with acquisitions of icebreakers, specialized Arctic facilities and high operational costs.”
A third concept exists. ADN reported that former Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell’s Qilak LNG, a $5 billion plan, “also proposes using a gravity-based platform.”
Rivals or partners? What the companies and the governor have said
Polar LNG has pitched itself as a partner rather than a rival. At its launch, Reuters reported that Polar LNG “would collaborate with another project called Alaska LNG,” and the company’s October 23 statement says Polar LNG “could complement other Alaskan gas development initiatives.” When ADN asked in March about Beach’s separate tanker plan, a Glenfarne spokesperson declined to comment.
Polar LNG did get a stage in Alaska’s energy establishment. The agenda for the May 2026 Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference lists a plenary session titled “Polar LNG: America’s Next Energy Frontier Starts in Alaska,” with Riddle as speaker. The governor’s office describes the event as Dunleavy’s own creation: “We started this conference five years ago to put Alaska on the map for investors,” he said. Alaska LNG was also on the program, in a fireside chat between Dunleavy and Glenfarne CEO Brendan Duval. As of October 26, no public statement from Dunleavy about the Polar LNG allegations had appeared in the coverage reviewed; Alaska officials’ responses are tracked in our piece on Sen. Dan Sullivan and the Alaska politics.
The sharpest difference between the two plans is legal, not technical. Alaska LNG’s federal export authorization has been in place since 2020 and was reaffirmed in 2023. Polar LNG’s path runs through an OFAC licensing decision on Russian-built equipment, a process explained in our guide to the OFAC license request.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between Polar LNG and Alaska LNG?
Alaska LNG, led by Glenfarne with the state as a 25 percent owner, would pipe North Slope gas about 800 miles south to Nikiski for liquefaction and export. Polar LNG would liquefy gas at a nearshore plant on the North Slope itself and ship it on ice-class tankers, skipping the long pipeline.
How much would Polar LNG cost?
Polar LNG told Reuters in March 2026 that phase one carried a price of $8 billion to $9 billion for roughly 7 million tons of annual output, and that more phases could follow. The Financial Times, as reported by Business Standard, described it as a $25 billion project. The two figures may reflect different scopes; the sources do not reconcile them.
Has Alaska LNG reached a final investment decision?
No final investment decision had been announced as of Oct. 26, based on the coverage reviewed. Glenfarne has gas supply precedent agreements with North Slope producers, but South Korea says it has not committed to the investment President Trump announced on September 30.
Is Polar LNG allowed to buy Russian equipment?
Only with Treasury permission. Polar LNG says it has asked OFAC, the Treasury sanctions office, to approve its planned purchase of a half-built Novatek liquefaction platform. As of Oct. 26, no ruling on that request had been reported.
Do Polar LNG and Alaska LNG compete?
Both projects say no. Polar LNG says it could complement other Alaska gas initiatives, and its former CEO told Reuters in March it would collaborate with Alaska LNG. Glenfarne declined to comment on a similar North Slope tanker proposal when ADN asked in March.
Sources
- Polar LNG Announces Leadership Change and Outlines Vision for Alaska North Slope Development — Polar LNG (company statement), October 23, 2026
- Alaska LNG export terminal got funding from Russia’s sanctioned Novatek before US nod—FT report — ThePrint (Bloomberg wire), October 24, 2026
- Top executives quit $25 bn US gas project over alleged Russian control — Business Standard, October 25, 2026
- Planned LNG plant in Alaska seeks equipment from sanctioned Russia firm — Reuters (via Eye on the Arctic), April 1, 2026
- Newly formed Polar LNG aims to develop nearshore project on Alaska’s North Slope — Oil & Gas Journal, March 31, 2026
- Glenfarne, ConocoPhillips Sign North Slope Gas Sales Precedent Agreement for Alaska LNG — Glenfarne Group (company release), May 18, 2026
- Alaska LNG Project LLC; Amended Record of Decision for Order No. 3643-C — Federal Register / U.S. Department of Energy, April 2023
- Alaska LNG says it expects to start laying pipe as early as December — Anchorage Daily News, January 24, 2026
- South Korean official says Trump announcement on Alaska LNG went ‘far beyond what was agreed’ — Anchorage Daily News, October 2, 2026
- Trump’s push for $50B Korean investment in Alaska gasline faces familiar economic challenges — Alaska Public Media, October 9, 2026
- Texas investor with Trump family ties pursues project to tap North Slope gas — Anchorage Daily News, March 3, 2026
- Ongoing Optimism: Glenfarne Issues ‘Call to Arms’ for Alaska LNG Pipeline — Alaska Business Magazine, May 22, 2026
- Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference Highlights Global Interest in Alaska Energy and Minerals Resources — Office of Gov. Mike Dunleavy, May 2026
- Agenda — Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference, May 19-21, 2026
This article is news reporting and analysis based on the public sources listed above, as they stood on the dates shown. Where officials, lawmakers or analysts disagree, including on whether an action is lawful, their positions are attributed to them; Donald Trump Class Action is not a court and nothing here is legal advice. Facts in a developing story can change.