Alaska LNG: Yes or no?

For years, Alaska has been sitting on a massive natural gas resource and doing almost nothing with it. The gas has been there the whole time, up on the North Slope, but for decades it has mostly been treated like something we would “get to later.” Later turned into years, then decades, and meanwhile the rest of the world kept moving.

Now, for the first time in a long time, Alaska may actually have a real shot to move that gas to market. And the reason has as much to do with the rest of the world as it does with us.

The world is being reminded once again that energy security is not some abstract policy debate. It is real. Every time the Middle East flares up, buyers are reminded how much of the global LNG supply still depends on unstable governments, vulnerable facilities, and narrow shipping routes like the Strait of Hormuz. Europe is still living with the consequences of Russia using energy as a weapon, and countries in Asia are trying to lock in dependable long-term supply before the next disruption hits.

That is where Alaska comes in. We are 7 days sail from our Indo-Pacific allies.

If our LNG project gets across the finish line, the gas sitting under the North Slope could be shipped across the Pacific to places like Japan and South Korea, where it would help power industry, heat homes, and support the modern economy, including the manufacturing and computing infrastructure the world is racing to build. Alaska offers something a lot of the world cannot right now: a secure source of natural gas from American soil, under American law, moving on a route that avoids much of the geopolitical nonsense other suppliers have to deal with.

Gas shipped from Nikiski to Asia goes straight across the Pacific. It does not have to squeeze through dangerous choke points or gamble on whether some unstable regime decides to make trouble that week. For our allies, that matters.

But that raises the real question: Is Alaska willing to be the stable place the world is looking for?

Because too often, our biggest obstacle is not Washington, not environmental litigation, and not foreign competition. It is us.

Too often in Alaska, we do not ask whether a project is good for the long-term future of the state. We ask how quickly we can carve it up, tax it, delay it, condition it, litigate it, or squeeze it for concessions before it has generated a dime. Every borough wants its cut. Every local politician wants leverage. Every layer of government wants to act like it is the final gatekeeper. And then we all stand around wondering why capital goes somewhere else.

That is not strategy. That is self-sabotage.

And it is especially shortsighted here, because this project is not just about exports. One of the strongest arguments for Alaska LNG is that it also has real value for Alaskans. The in-state gas piece matters. Southcentral is facing real long-term gas supply concerns, and if this project helps secure reliable, affordable gas for Alaskans while also opening export markets, then it starts making sense to regular people, not just boardrooms and consultants.

It also means jobs, and the jobs piece is real. A project like this would mean years of construction work and substantial long-term employment, from welders and truck drivers to operators, engineers, and support trades. It would also mean more local business activity, more spending in communities, and more borough revenue tied to actual growth instead of just taxing whatever still works.

That part needs to be said plainly too: we do not build a durable economy by regulating ourselves into irrelevance and hoping Washington sends enough money to cover the difference. And we do not build a borough economy by trying to squeeze a legacy project before it ever earns a return.

None of this means the project is a done deal. It is not. Financing has to come together. Buyers have to commit. Permits have to get handled. Communities, Native corporations, boroughs, and landowners all need to be treated fairly and honestly. Alaskans are right to be skeptical. We have all heard big promises tied to giant price tags before.

But there is a difference between healthy skepticism and self-defeating hesitation. There is also a difference between protecting your community and making sure nothing ever gets built.

At some point, Alaska has to decide whether we are still in the business of building things or whether we are content to spend the next twenty years talking about what could have been while other places eat our lunch.

The gas is there. The need is there. The market is there. Our children and grandchildren will be here. Do we want to leave a legacy project for their benefit?

But the only real question is whether Alaska is finally ready to get out of its own way. Rep Kevin McCabe is the Alaska House Representative for District 30.