Editor's note: This article is written for publication by a federal agency whose goal is to transparently coordinate permitting and construction of a pipeline that delivers Alaska's natural gas to the Lower 48.

Ideas for moving Prudhoe Bay's natural gas bounty off Alaska's North Slope are as plentiful as cottonwood seed in the June air.

Some are modest: Truck small amounts of gas to Fairbanks consumers.

Some are epic: Pipe massive amounts to Lower 48 consumers - the most expensive North American private-sector construction project ever.

Some are pinned to visions of an Alaska energy utopia, where gas for local use is plentiful and relatively cheap, the oil industry reawakens to develop new fields by the dozen, the state treasury overflows with wealth, and new industries sprout from the earth like wild lupine.

Some are backed by tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars to design, engineer and otherwise prepare for construction. These include the major pipeline through Canada and a much more modest pipeline to Southcentral Alaska.

Some are little more than a concept looking to catch on.

The great North Slope oil discoveries of the 1960s and 1970s also found an estimated 35 trillion cubic feet of natural gas - one and a half times the entire volume of U.S. production last year. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates an additional 221 trillion cubic feet await discovery in Alaska's Arctic, onshore and offshore. If only an economically viable way could be found to move the gas to consumers.

Below we summarize several proposals - big and small - for transporting natural gas from Alaska's North Slope.

Pipeline to Alberta

This involves an approximately 1,700-mile, 48-inch buried pipeline from the Prudhoe Bay field on Alaska's North Slope to the British Columbia-Alberta border in Canada. From there, the gas could flow to the Lower 48 via an extensive network of existing pipelines.

The gasline would parallel the trans-Alaska oil pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to Delta Junction, then continue into Canada roughly parallel to the Alaska Highway.

The pipeline would move up to 4.5 billion cubic feet of gas per day.

The project includes a 58-mile pipeline to Prudhoe Bay from the Point Thomson gas field.

Sponsor: TransCanada and ExxonMobil, also known as the Alaska Pipeline Project.

Estimated cost: $32 billion to $41 billion (2009 dollars).

The cost includes a $12 billion gas treatment plant at the Prudhoe Bay field to remove water, carbon dioxide and other impurities from the gas, then compress the raw gas before it enters the pipeline.

Gas for Alaskans: The pipeline would provide at least five points in Alaska from which spur lines could be built to provide gas to Alaskans. The APP project involves only providing gas takeoff points, not construction of the spur lines, which would be up to the state, utilities or private companies.

Status: In the development stage. The project sponsor is refining details - from the physical pipeline to the exact route - and seeking customers to ship gas through the line.

The Alaska Pipeline Project spent an estimated $288 million from the project onset through June 2011 and plans to spend $209 million more during the following 12 months. Under the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act of 2007, the state plans to reimburse the sponsor for up to $500 million of its estimated $717 million in pre-construction costs.

Besides refining the project's design and engineering, they are gathering volumes of data on fish, wildlife, soils, vegetation, cultural sites, air quality and other information that can be used for the environmental impact statement the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will prepare. The sponsor plans to apply to FERC in October 2012 for a certificate to construct and operate the pipeline. FERC's review is expected to take about two years.

The sponsor held an "open season" in 2010 at which it solicited pipeline customers. Alaska Pipeline Project officials said they are negotiating with major companies that bid significant volumes.

The sponsor needs commitments for much of its pipeline's capacity to obtain construction financing.

Proposed timeline:

October 2012 - Project sponsor plans to apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a certificate of public convenience and necessity allowing pipeline construction and operation.

2012-2014 - FERC reviews the application and produces an environmental impact statement.

2014 - U.S. and Canadian approvals issued.

2015-2020 - Construction and commissioning.

2020 - First gas flows.

Pluses:

- Short-term economic boost to Alaska during construction. Estimated 7,000 jobs during peak construction.

- Likely long-term economic boost as billions of dollars in revenue flows to state treasury, the Alaska Permanent Fund and local governments along the pipeline route.

- Outlet for natural gas now stranded on Alaska's North Slope should spur oil and gas exploration, finding new crude for the trans-Alaska oil pipeline and extra gas for a gas pipeline.

- With a spur line, consumers in Alaska's Railbelt could be assured of an affordable supply of gas for decades. The project likely is the cheapest source of new natural gas to supplement Cook Inlet supplies in Southcentral Alaska. For the Fairbanks area, relatively inexpensive gas would ease high energy prices for heating and power generation.

- The project might give rise to two industries in Southcentral Alaska, one that exports natural gas liquids and another that exports liquefied natural gas.

- About half of the construction cost could be backed by federal loan guarantees; federal tax breaks are available for pipeline and gas treatment plant.

Minuses:

- High cost makes project risky for lenders that would supply construction financing.

- Requires major gas shippers -- likely the North Slope producers -- to commit to using the pipeline for at least 20 years.

- Not knowing what natural gas market prices will be over that long time horizon makes the project extremely risky for gas shippers. Low prices could shrink or eliminate their profits.

- North Slope producers want state of Alaska to set stable fiscal terms for gas production and the pipeline.

- Fairbanks area energy costs remain relatively high until 2020 or later, when natural gas is flowing. Pipeline might not be running before Southcentral Alaska needs supplemental source of natural gas.