The vehemence and rancour surrounding the Thai-Malaysian gas pipeline has threatened to derail the project before even the first pipe has been laid. This is unfortunate. Completing this project represents one of the best opportunities we have to reduce our ruinous dependence on imported oil and to maximise its use of the resources we have on hand.

A broad coalition of activists have banded together to oppose the 364km pipeline and plans to build a gas separation plant in the South. Some argue the project is an environmental disaster in the making. Others say the Petroleum Authority has not been particularly forthcoming about the ultimate cost of the project. Several senators and other politicians have made vague charges of corruption, alleging speculation involving prominent officials and the planned site.

No doubt some of their concerns are valid. An independent environmental assessment should be prepared to back up the PTT's claims that the most modern safeguards and construction techniques will be used. And, yes, greater dialogue with local communities is needed to assuage fears and allow a reasoned debate on the issues. But those same activists who charge the PTT of being less than forthright about the project's ills can be said to be just as guilty about its benefits.

Members of the Songkhla Chamber of Commerce say they remain committed to the project and the 70 billion baht in projected investment which would enter the southern provinces once it is completed. Other southern provincial leaders have expressed a willingness to take on the project and the investment funds if Songkhla residents do not.

Policymakers should be guided by the needs and wants of the public. But the responsibility of the government is to consider the needs of all, not just those of any single group. It is obvious that energy consumption will continue to grow as industrial and economic development continues. But where will this electricity come from, and at what price? The stark reality is that each choice involves costs and benefits.

According to Egat, producing hydro-electricity is cheapest, at 0.3 baht per unit. But opponents argue that dams disrupt local communities and destroy the environment. Supporters argue that hydro-electricity generation does not depend on fossil fuels or pollute the air. Dams also can play a key role in easing seasonal flooding and helping support irrigation systems for farmers. The debate goes on, but it seems unlikely that any new dams will be built, not after the protests projects such as the Pak Moon dam have generated. Next cheapest is coal, which runs at about 0.84 baht per unit. Coal can be sourced locally and currently accounts for around 16% of total electricity generation. Yet civil groups have protested against plans to build two new coal-fired plants in Prachuap Khiri Khan province in the near South on environmental grounds.

Then there's natural gas, the generating cost of which runs to about 1.2 baht per unit. Convenient supplies are available in the Gulf of Thailand, Burma and Malaysia. Unfortunately, delivering gas from the pump to the plant in any practical quantity depends on pipelines. Scratch natural gas, chant the protesters; pipes are evil, they hurt trees, they are a blot on the landscape, they can break at inopportune times.

What's left? Nuclear power is a non-starter, particularly after the cobalt scare earlier this year. Solar power? Perhaps in another generation or so; battery and solar cell technology remains in its infancy and is hardly a cost-effective solution for a developing economy.

That leaves imported oil and diesel. But are we truly ready to pay the price? Is Thailand prepared to cede all control over energy costs to the vicissitudes of the international markets? Is this truly the path down which self-sufficiency lies?