Alaska LNG could cost more than double comparable Gulf Coast liquefaction projects, a cost gap that raises questions about the export venture's economics, Reuters reports.

The estimate positions the proposed Alaskan liquefaction and export project at a significant disadvantage against the established Gulf Coast LNG corridor, where developers continue to sanction new trains at lower unit costs. The cost differential, if it holds through front-end engineering, would pressure the project's ability to secure long-term offtake agreements at competitive delivered prices into Asian markets.

The Gulf Coast basin benefits from existing pipeline infrastructure, an established liquefaction workforce, and brownfield expansion economics. Alaska LNG, by contrast, would require greenfield development — including a pipeline system crossing the state from the North Slope — before any gas reaches a tidewater liquefaction plant.

Reuters' assessment treats the cost comparison as analysis rather than settled fact, and project backers could narrow the gap through engineering optimization, phased development, or federal support mechanisms. Still, the report's framing puts the burden of proof on the project's sponsors to demonstrate that Alaskan gas can reach LNG markets at delivered costs competitive with Lower 48 supply.

Asian buyers weighing long-term contracts will compare Alaska LNG's expected delivered cost against US Gulf Coast cargoes, Qatari expansion volumes, and new supply from other basins. A capital cost more than twice that of Gulf Coast rivals would be difficult to recover in a global LNG market where buyers have growing leverage and alternative supply sources.

Watch item: whether the project's developers release an updated cost estimate and offtake progress that narrows the gap with Gulf Coast liquefaction economics.