Option 1 West of the airport: This would be on land believed to be mainly owned by the businessmen Ulick and Desmond McEvaddy, although there are believed to be several landowners in the area.
The area is generally known as Huntstown. According to the DAA document, this facility could be built by 2010 and would have ancillary costs of €120 million.
However, its main disadvantage, states the document, would be lack of a link to the metro rail project. It also states that this site "does not meet the criteria of a low-cost terminal".
It states that any development in this area would also require "significant external infrastructure" and there would be a "higher front-end cost".
Despite these reservations, the report says the development has the right zoning and is a green field site. Crucially, from a consumer point of view, the document acknowledges there would be no disruption to customers if a terminal was built on this site. It also has the advantage of western access to the airport.
A development in this area would produce "optimal" terminal design, it adds.
The McEvaddy brothers have said their option would be able to handle the largest amount of passengers.
Option 2 The northern apron site: This is the site believed to have the strongest support of Government. The advantage of this site is its proximity to the existing terminal. A development here could "leverage" existing infrastructure.
Most of the land is owned by the DAA, although several private companies have facilities in this area, including SR Technics and Aer Lingus.
However, this option may face serious political pressure from the Progressive Democrats who want full competition at the airport between the old and the new terminal.
The main disadvantage of the site is any new terminal would be constrained by the land available. Customers would also face disruption during construction. However, the DAA document claims the site is compatible with the metro.
It would cost about €80 million to knock down several SR Technics hangers and move them elsewhere in the airport. The document also refers to the need to spend about €10 million acquiring other strips of land in this area.
Ryanair has supported the idea of a terminal in this general area, although the airline's chief executive Michael O'Leary is strongly opposed to any role in the project by the DAA and particularly SIPTU.
Option 3 The southern area: The DAA also examined an option at the southern end of the airport. The owner of this land is not disclosed in the document.
The advantage to building in the southern part of the airport is that, once again, it would provide a green field site and there would be no disruption to customers during construction. Western access by road would also be possible, suggests the document, and the facility could be built by 2010.
Because it is a green field site, there would be significant space to build the "optimal-sized" terminal with lots of room for contact stand for aircraft. This site would also be able to link up with the metro. It also satisfied the wishes of low-cost carriers, claims the document.
The big disadvantage - regarded by many observers as possibly fatal - is this site is not zoned for airport use. To change the zoning would be highly complex, argues the DAA document.
A southern terminal would also leave large strips of land between the runways unused. The document does concede that, while this site would have a "higher front-end cost", it could end up being cheaper than other options in the end.
