For more than a year now, we’ve heard a lot about the future possibility of a heavier, more toxic form of crude oil being pumped through the Portland-to-Montreal pipeline.

Some call it “tar sands.” Others call it “oil sands.” Still others refer to it by its more scientific-sounding name, “diluted bitumen” or “synthetic crude.” Either way, the stuff is mysterious, and that mystique is clouding the issue for many who would like to know what it is and what it could mean for Mainers.

It’s a sticky subject to be sure, not only due to the viscosity and heavier texture of the oil itself, but because pipeline companies shipping the substance are unwilling to disclose the additives used to make the substance flow more easily through a pipeline. Plus, its possible introduction into Maine could pose serious environmental hazards if spilled. As a result, the prospect that the Maine pipeline could be used to ship oil sands to South Portland for eventual ship transport is causing great concern to environmental groups and ordinary citizens.

The undertones of the debate are just as interesting as what makes up the proprietary mixture. The words used by both sides to describe the substance are particularly enlightening, since you can tell right away where someone stands. Opponents call it “tar sands,” while proponents call it “oil sands” or “diluted bitumen” or even “Albertan crude,” since the stuff is literally dug from the ground in huge mining operations in the vast boreal forests of Alberta.

Words matter. All PR specialists can attest to that. “Tar sands” sticks in the mind and sounds like the oil has a thick, sludge-like appearance. Demonstrators often show pictures of the stuff after it sunk to the bottom of the Kalamazoo River, the locale of a terrible 2010 spill, to prove their point that it has a thicker texture than light crude.

Proponents, mostly from the pipeline companies, say “tar sands” is inaccurate. They cite government reports that find it’s no more corrosive to pipelines than traditional crude and that opponents are lying when they say the stuff is like “liquid sandpaper” or has to be heated to flow through a pipeline. Tar, proponents say, is a man-made product, and “tar sands” is a term not based in reality, but rather the linguistic creation of spin doctors aiming to score points, and profits, for environmental causes.

Whatever the reality is when it comes to the new oil’s consistency, it seems from our vantage point the opponents are winning the all-important PR fight, since “tar-sands” tends to be the description of choice for those discussing the subject at public meetings around the region. Opponents were out early, more than a year ago, in fact, pounding the word “tar sands” into the minds of Mainers. As a result, Maine-based newspapers will typically use the term “tar-sands,” with the possible “so-called” as a modifier, since that’s the term Mainers have come to know the oily product by. Words are important, and this divisive, yet vitally important matter, points to that eternal fact.

While it’s clear the power of words can tilt an argument, what is needed now is clarity about this hot-button issue. We don’t need spin from both sides; we need substance, especially regarding the substance of the stuff that might be introduced. That would be of great benefit to Mainers living along the pipeline route, as well as the tens of thousands of us reliant on Sebago Lake drinking water.

– John Balentine, managing editor

Copy the Story Link