Responding to questions after her speech to the Commonwealth Club, Clinton appeared to tip off pipeline watchers to the likelihood the federal government will approve the project.

"We're either going to be dependent on dirty oil from the Gulf or dirty oil from Canada," she said, in part.

"We're not yet signed off on it. But we are inclined to do so ...," she also said.

TransCanada's Keystone XL is scheduled to come through Nebraska, crossing through the Sandhills and over the Ogallala Aquifer on its way from Alberta, Canada, to refineries along the Texas Gulf Coast.

That can't happen until the State Department, in charge because the project crosses an international border, acts on a final environmental impact statement, perhaps as soon as the end of the year, and determines if the pipeline is in the U.S. national interest.

One of the reasons Clinton's answer to a question in San Francisco was less than clear is because the original query referenced a different petroleum pipeline, the Alberta Clipper, being built by another company.

Clinton already has approved that project, and Tony Iallonardo of the National Wildlife Federation, a staunch opponent of Keystone XL, said her answer "implies that it's Keystone XL."

The National Wildlife Federation and Bold Nebraska, an in-state opposition group, are among many seeking clarification.

The Journal Star's own efforts to achieve clarity got as far as State Department spokesman Michael Tran, who offered a chronology of the federal review process, but declined to comment on the speech aftermath.

"I really don't want to get into that," Tran said. "I wasn't at the event."

In a follow-up phone call, he promised to try to clear things up by the end of the day.

Jane Kleeb of Bold Nebraska said it's unclear which pipeline Clinton was talking about, but she was not prepared to rule out that it was Keystone XL.

"If I was on TransCanada's side, I might be saying that," she said.

On the other hand, "Secretary Clinton is always very cautious about her statements. And knowing there are thousands and thousands of comments from individuals, as well as agencies, I can't imagine her speaking out of turn."

Many of those comments are from Nebraska, where worries about the fragile topography of the Sandhills and contamination of the aquifer have generated opposition from citizens and letters of concern from Sen. Mike Johanns and Gov. Dave Heineman, among others.

One clue of how much attention Clinton's remarks have gotten came from the woman who answered the phone in the State Department press office Wednesday.

"Is it about the pipeline?" she said with a laugh. "Is it about her speech in San Francisco?"

There was no laughter from Tran, when he called back later in the day, and no immediate on-the-record response either on what Clinton meant.

In "The Hill," a blog that covers Congress, Darren Goode leaned strongly toward Keystone XL as the context for Clinton's thoughts.

"(She) appears poised to approve a controversial TransCanada pipeline ... despite pushback from House Democrats and environmental groups," he wrote Wednesday.

Jeff Rauh, spokesman for TransCanada, seemed content to leave the search for clarity to somebody else.

"I think the State Department is the right commentor on this," he said.

The National Wildlife Federation's Iallonardo said it was all "vexing, particularly since, to my knowledge, she has never made a public statement about the Keystone XL pipeline."

"To do so in this way seems odd," he said. "That's why I hope she clarifies her position."

Reach Art Hovey at 402-473-7223 or ahovey@journalstar.com.