Pipeline policy

Thousands of demonstrators gathered outside the White House on a sunny fall afternoon chanting the same "yes we can" that filled the air when Barack Obama took up office three years ago.

This time though they had not gathered to celebrate a victory, but had come from all over the country to demand that their president stop the Keystone XL pipeline.

"I am disappointed he has not been a stronger leader on climate and energy," Courtney Hight, Co-director of the Energy Action Coalition, an association of environmental groups organized by young people, told Deutsche Welle.

Hight, who in 2007 campaigned tirelessly for Obama, addressed a crowd to express a sentiment shared by many others.

"He is the leader that we elected and we need him to stand up to big oil and block the tar sands pipeline," she shouted.

The 2,700-kilometer (1,677-mile) long pipeline would transport crude from oil sands in the Canadian province of Alberta through the US to the Gulf of Mexico. Because the pipeline would cut right through American territory, it cannot be built without the authorization of the US Department of State.

In a recent interview with a television station in Nebraska - one of the states that would be affected - Barack Obama said he would study the recommendations made by the State Department and would make the decision himself, taking into consideration both the economic benefits and the health of the American people.

"Folks in Nebraska, like all across the country aren't just going to say to themselves 'we'll take a few thousand jobs' if it means our kids are potentially drinking water that would damage health or if rich land that is so important to agriculture in Nebraska ends up being adversely affected," he said.

Fear of an oil leak

Danielle Droitsch of the environmental protection organization National Resources Defense Council says there are serious dangers inherent in such a project.

"We have a pipeline that actually could create tremendous contamination of one of the largest aquifers in the United States," she told Deutsche Welle. She was referring to the Ogallala-Aquifer which supplies several million people in six states with drinking water and countless farmers in the Midwest with a means of irrigation.

The pipeline authorization process has been ongoing for the past three years, during which time the Department of State commissioned a study to assess the implied risks. But the results are controversial.

Engineer John Stansbury of the University of Nebraska analyzed the findings but came to a different conclusion than the report itself. He believes the risk of a leak and the potential implications thereof are far greater than indicated in the study.

He also disputes the time frame that operators TransCanada say they would need to shut the pipeline down, insisting that it is unrealistically short. But his main critique is directed at the sources which informed the report.

"All the findings are taken directly from TransCanada's or TransCanada's consultants' reports and assessments and assertions," he said. "There has been no independent analysis of any of this stuff.

Independent study?

Environmental activists draw attention to the fact that Cardno ENTRIX - the company that compiled the study - lists TransCanada as one of its former top clients, and that one of the oil company's leading lobbyists was a close advisor to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during the presidential campaign.

For all these reasons, they are calling - at the very least - for a new, independent investigation. But pipeline proponents such as the American Petroleum Institute (API) are unimpressed.

API central region director John Kerekes says enough research has been done and that the time has come for a decision. If the permit is issued this year as planned, construction could start right away. On that basis, the pipeline would be completed in 2014, and would not, Kerekes says, be an environmental hazard.

"Pipelines have long been recognized as one of the safest, most reliable, well-regulated ways to move crude oil and petroleum products," Kerekes told Deutsche Welle. "This being the newest, the most technologically advanced pipeline certainly is going to be very, very safe."

Besides the safety of the pipeline, there is some controversy surrounding the number of jobs that stand to be created through its construction. Initially the talk was of 13,000 for the construction and 7,000 for suppliers, but those numbers have now been adjusted to reflect far fewer real employment opportunities.

Another bone of contention among Keystone XL opponents is that mining in oil sands is believed to release huge quantities of carbon dioxide - between 30 and 40 percent more than conventional drilling, according to Danielle Droitsch.

The figures are enough for the European Union to be considering banning the import of such oil.

Obama's disappointed followers

On the other side of the fence, there are those who say it would be better to use oil from neighboring Canada rather than import it from the Middle East or South America. But that argument doesn't move demonstrators.

Alex Russell, a student at the James Madison High School in Vienna, Virginia, says the authorization of the pipeline would simply drive home the message that the United States of American "would rather go for any source of oil than look for a clean energy alternative."

The twelfth-grader traveled to Washington with his school friends to join the protests. Next year he will be eligible to vote, and he already knows that Obama will get his ballot, but says he would give it to him with greater relish if the president were to send the right signals now.

Not everyone is prepared to give the incumbent leader the benefit of the doubt. Chemist Roger Shamel, who changed his party allegiance on the basis of Obama's promise of a climate policy shift, is not sure whether he will vote the same way again.

Another protester, Steve France, is equally disappointed, but has not given up all hope yet.

"We have to vote for him, we have no choice," he told Deutsche Welle with a sense of resignation. "But there's a difference between having people just vote for you and getting excited."

Because only when they are excited, do they knock on doors, make telephone calls and give up their free time to help their preferred candidate into the White House. With that in mind, President Obama, cannot afford to take the Keystone XL pipeline decision lightly.

Reporter: Christina Bergmann / tkw
Editor: Rob Mudge