Philadelphia - A pipeline does have implication in the political life of a country: this is real not only in Central and Eastern Europe, where the control by Russia over energy resources and pipelines is a means in Moscow hands to influence and control geopolitics in Ukraine and the European Union, but also in the United States, where the two main Parties, the Presidential Administration and the Congress had and will definitively have a strong confrontation over the Keystone XL pipeline and the role of the United States in global energy geopolitics.
Keystone XL is a USD 8 billion pipeline conceived by Canadian oil company Trans Canada to carry crude oil sand from Alberta Canadian State to oil refineries in Texas through several US states as Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri and Louisiana.
On Thursday, November 18, in the US senate, a bipartisan majority of republicans and centrist democrats failed to find required 60 'ayes' votes to close the debate on the realization of Keystone XL and send the bill directly to President Barack Obama desk to be signed for immediate execution.
The vote in the senate was preceded by a vote in the House of Representatives, where a bi-partisan legacy of republicans and centrist democrats, similar to the one that supported the bill in the senate, succeeded to pass the bill with a overwhelming majority.
Republicans and centrist democrats second the realization of Keystone XL because it diversifies oil supplies to the United States, which is heavily dependent on oil import from Venezuela and Saudi Arabia.
On the other hand, liberal democrats oppose Keystone XL by arguing that the pipeline won't drop energy prices for US citizens and it would only allow Trans Canada to export its own oil in the world with no advantages for the United States.
President Obama, a liberal democrat, said he would veto the bill in case of approval in the senate because Keystone XL requires a special permit by the Department of State, which did not evaluated whenever authorize the realization of the pipeline.
The debate on Keystone XL is strictly filed with the one on the use of shale gas resources, after the United States, according to a EIA report, acknowledged to be the first world country for what concerns shale gas resources.
President Obama, who understood that the United States will become the first gas exporter in the world within next twenty years, asked the Department of Energy to easy US gas export to those countries that don't have any free trade agreement with the United States.
President Obama also signed pre-contracts of shale gas supplying with important countries in the Asia-Pacific, such as India, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan and Japan. By so doing, President Obama aims to balance the growing power of China, which will probably overcome the United States as the first world economical power in next fifty years.
President Obama strategy of making the United States an energy power to balance the spectacular growth of China is seconded by centrist democrats, who endorse the use of shale gas export as a means to strengthen the commitment of the United States in Asia-Pacific, a world region that became the center of global affairs.
On the other side of the aisle, moderate republicans also support the need for the United States to use shale gas export as a means to strengthen the commitment of the United States in a world in which new global powers, such as China and Russia, are threatening US security and interests all around the world.
Shale gas revolution likely to favor NATO
However, not all members of the bipartisan coalition of centrist democrats and moderate republicans that favor shale gas export agree on the opportunity to export US shale gas to Asia-Pacific region. A group of moderate republicans, seconded by some centrist democrats, argued the need to give priority to shale gas exports to Europe, in order to help the European Union and NATO allies of the United States to drop their gas dependence on Russia.
The idea to encourage shale gas export to NATO allies would strengthen the commitment of the United States to oppose the growth of Russia in Europe, a region that President Obama had never considered as a priority of his foreign policy until Russian military aggression to Ukraine.
The debate on energy issues will have growing importance in the United States over the next years. On the one hand, centrist democrats and republicans support the need to promote the United States as a shale gas world exporter in order to maintain a leading role in world geopolitics.
On the other hand, liberal democrats and conservative republicans asked President Obama to pay more attention to the internal market, arguing that the raise of shale gas export from the United States to the rest of the world won't favor any drop of energy prices for US citizens.
President Obama will probably listen both pro-export and anti-export fields, but demonstrated to be ready to take advantage of so called shale revolution to increase the role of the United States in the world by dropping the power of non-democratic world powers that use energy as a means to extend geopolitical influence over independent countries, as Russia and China do.
Many on this issue will also depend on the next President of the a United States. If centrist democrat Hillary Clinton or a moderate republican will win the presidential race, as it seems today according to all pool surveys, shale gas export will certainly allow the United States to change the balance of power in world energy geopolitics.
Matteo Cazzulani
Analyst of Trans Atlantic, Central Eastern Europe and energy issues
Twitter @MatteoCazzulani