Our view: Initiative required

But they have one element in common that should both appeal to Alaskans and get us off the dime: Both argue for state ownership of a pipeline to tap Alaska's treasure of North Slope gas. Both require Alaskans' initiative to secure our own energy and wider economic future. Both aim to force North Slope gas out of the ground and to paying customers -- whether in Spenard or Seoul.

Lawmakers and the governor need to vet both of these proposals, and if either makes sense, put the wherewithal of the state behind it -- and we don't mean with another round of studies. Alaska has the resources to take care of its own energy needs and gain by world demand. We need to get them out of the ground.

Fauske led a team that delivered a report on a 24-inch Alaska gas "bullet" pipeline from the North Slope to Southcentral Alaska that would feed Alaska's railbelt energy needs and produce natural gas for Alaskans by 2019.

Walker released a report by the energy consultant Wood Mackenzie that examined prospects for a 48-inch all-Alaska gas line from the North Slope to Valdez, where natural gas would be liquefied and shipped by tanker to Asian markets. It's not clear how long that project would take, but the report based its projections on gas flow starting in 2021.

We're not trying to compare blueberries and crowberries here. Fauske's team had limited marching orders from the Legislature to concentrate on delivery of gas to Alaskans as soon as possible, without regard for export, and to figure out the best way. He can explain the Alaska Stand Alone Gas Pipeline (ASAP) but has to stop short of promoting it. And Fauske has made clear that the project his report recommends is not in competition with other gas pipeline projects.

Walker, by contrast, is an avowed supporter of an all-Alaska gas line to Valdez who argues that the state can do better than the AGIA process -- still under way and still under wraps -- and the bullet line. (AGIA is the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act, in which TransCanada and Exxon are in partnership and for which the state is liable for up tor $500 million of TransCanada's expenses.)

The Wood Mackenzie report projects that Alaska could reap from $75 billion to $419 billion in state royalties and taxes over 30 years from a gas line, based on various assumptions and on the gas that's known to be on the Slope. In addition, such a line would encourage oil and gas exploration because producers would have transport and markets for both -- a dual stream, leaving nothing stranded.

That's an attractive prospect, if it pans out.

And that's a big if. Walker is confident the ifs are manageable. Critics, such as Larry Persily, the federal coordinator for an Alaska gas line, argue there that the Alaska-owned line built for export to Asian markets remains more speculative than substantial, with too many holes.

Fauske says the bullet line depends on an anchor industrial tenant. He says a call for expressions of interest drew a first-rate response, but confidentiality rules keep him from saying who.

Both men say time is not on Alaska's side.

Lawmakers need to start serious vetting of these proposals -- and whether it's wise to wait on AGIA.

Would we, as Walker argues, be better off buying our way out of AGIA even for hundreds of millions of dollars, given the prospect of billions to come? Instead of waiting for the TransCanada-Exxon partnership to propose gas line terms to the state, would Alaskans do better to take on the risk of paying a company -- TransCanada perhaps -- to build the line for the state, thus requiring producers to ship if there were customers to buy?

We don't know the answers yet. We've heard smart people argue all sides -- and this editorial hasn't even mentioned David Gottstein's proposal for a gas line to a Fairbanks hub. But we do think it's time for Alaska to call some of its own shots, rather than waiting to move up the list on corporate agendas.

If Alaskans can take the initiative to shape our own destiny, meet our energy needs, create good jobs, accelerate energy production, spark the private sector and fill the public purse, we should do so.

BOTTOM LINE: Patience may be a trap, not a virtue, in the case of the gas line.