Korean Investments in Alaska LNG Unconfirmed

President Trump with Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick in the Oval Office. Source: The White House

President Trump—known for his tendency to exaggerate his own and the US’s achievements—hastened to announce major foreign investments in the country’s economy, particularly with the congressional elections just 32 days away and the administration’s foreign and domestic policy successes requiring a microscope to discern.

Hearing about the administration’s tremendous successes, Americans are apparently expected to gasp with delight and—scrambling in their eagerness to burst through the doors of polling stations—rush to vote for this administration (which has been economically disastrous) by casting a massive number of votes for Republican candidates.

However, the Korean publication cited below poured a large dose of bitterness into the president’s “barrel of honey” by politely but firmly refuting the US administration’s claim that the Republic of Korea had agreed to invest $50 billion in the long-troubled project to build the Alaska LNG pipeline and a liquefaction plant on Alaska’s southern coast.

According to the Alaska LNG Facility project plans, the gas liquefaction plant in Nikiski is designed to produce and process up to 20 million metric tons of liquefied natural gas (LNG) per year.

If realized, the Alaska LNG plant would become the second-largest LNG producer in the US—trailing only Sabine Pass LNG (Louisiana), with its annual output of 30 million tons—and the fourth-largest in the world, surpassed only by the massive Ras Laffan LNG Complex (Qatar), which produces 77 million tons (with plans to expand to 126 million tons), and Nigeria LNG (Bonny Island, Rivers State, Nigeria), with its capacity of 21.9 million tons per annum (MTPA).

In this scenario, Russia’s Yamal LNG (Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug), with its capacity of 17.4 MTPA, would move to fifth place globally and second among Arctic gas projects.

The target of 126 million tons of LNG set by Qatar for 2028 is achievable only if, by that time, two production lines at the world’s largest LNG facility in Ras Laffan—damaged as a result of the aggressive and illegal war waged by the US against Iran—are restored. By that same time, US LNG production is projected to rise to 160 million tons.

The US goal of securing global energy dominance—an objective for which it lacks sufficient internal resources and requires massive foreign investment—entails hindering strong competitors. Chief among these are Russia, where hydrocarbon production growth is stifled by illegal sanctions, and Qatar, which has suffered and continues to suffer from the war unleashed by the US and Israel.

The puzzling current situation in the Middle East—historically the world’s primary source of hydrocarbons—becomes clearer when one considers the US’s underlying motive: to use its superior military might to create conditions that ban or restrict hydrocarbon exports from the region to the global market.

However, the US aim goes beyond merely inflicting blows that leave its Middle Eastern allies with bruised faces; it seeks to create chaos that yields undisputed global energy hegemony—a new instrument of global governance to supplement the waning military power of a fading global hegemon.

Holding competitors—even nominal allies—by the throat while occasionally delivering painful blows to the groin has become the new US strategy and policy. When love has died but the marriage persists, the relationship between the head of the household and his unloved wives becomes defined by recurring abuse—at least until the wives finally have enough.

Yet there is a major glimmer of hope on the horizon: given the rapid growth of US oil and gas production, the country will achieve lasting global energy hegemony; allies will be fitted with energy “dog collars” and find happiness once more—simply because the master might stop kicking them in their scrawny ribs from time to time.

After all, it takes so little to be happy.

Meanwhile, the Alaska LNG plant project remains in limbo; it is extremely expensive and may not pay off in the foreseeable future—especially considering the massive global expansion of LNG production, which could create a supply glut in the near term (roughly five years out) and drive down prices for the commodity.