Alaska has a viable natural gas pipeline project.

Oil and pipeline companies see that; that's why they're in Alaska where the gas is.

Alaska's governors have proposed four different possible scenarios to a gas line. Chief among them is one proposed by Gov. Sarah Palin. It has that distinction because it is the catalyst for the high interest right now.

Palin favors continuing with the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act, which would result in TransCanada, a pipeline construction company with 36,000 miles of line in the northern hemisphere, receiving a license to move toward building an Alaska gas line. The line is designed from the North Slope to Alberta, Canada. Alaska's gas would go to market in 2018-2020, 10 to 12 years later. In addition to the license, if granted, the state promised to pay $500 million to TransCanada under the terms of AGIA.

Exxon and British Petroleum, two of Alaska's largest oil companies, propose their own gas line construction project. They claim more than 50,000 miles of pipeline around the world, and would increase that number with a line very similar to that proposed by TransCanada. Their project, called Denali - The Alaska Gas Pipeline, came about soon after the TransCanada proposal.

Former Gov. Frank Murkowski had negotiated with the oil companies during his administration in an attempt to move the pipeline ahead. The administration and the companies came to an agreement, but the Legislature rejected it.

The oil companies say they don't need a $500 million state subsidy, although a couple years ago they sought a tax break as an incentive to build the gas line.

Meanwhile, former Gov. Walter Hickel is lobbying against TransCanada's proposal. Hickel supports an Alaska line from the North Slope to Valdez, with Alaskans maintaining control of the project. Hickel doesn't like the idea of Canada and its government deciding when the gas line will be built, who will be building it, how much the gas will be taxed and how Alaska's gas is distributed.

This week former Gov. Tony Knowles suggested the Palin administration negotiate with TransCanada and the oil companies for a joint project. The oil companies hold the rights to the gas supply to be transported in the line. TransCanada doesn't have a viable project without the natural gas.

It's now decision-making time for the state Legislature, which is scheduled to adjourn from its second special session Aug. 2.

Legislators convened a public hearing on Palin's proposal in Ketchikan - as has been done in other communities - earlier in the week. Ketchikan might be the farthest from any proposed gas line, but it demonstrated the keenest interest, with turnout equalling, if not surpassing, that of the state's major population centers. Per capita, Ketchikan exceeded interest in other areas of the state. Local elected officials, business leaders, educators and other representatives of special interest groups attended.

Clearly, energy is on everyone's mind. Based on public testimony, failing to get Alaska's natural gas to market isn't an option. Building the gas line will benefit all of Alaska - even Ketchikan - and the state should share the wealth with its communities.

AGIA has done what it was designed to do. Private enterprise has stepped forward with proposals to build the gas line. Those proposals wouldn't have been forthcoming if the companies didn't believe in the project's profitability.

The state should get the parties together to build the line. The oil companies own the rights to the gas supply; they don't need the state ponying up $500 million. TransCanada likely will be most effective and efficient in cutting through Canada's regulatory red tape.

Then Alaska can focus on spending its natural gas royalties to build and grow the state, from Barrow to Ketchikan and all points in between.