The debate over so-called “tar sands” oil came to national attention with the proposed Keystone Pipeline, and reached its peak when President Obama rejected a portion of the planned Canada-to-Texas project due to concerns over its impact on an ecologically sensitive section of Nebraska.

TransCanada, the company building the more-than-2,000-mile pipeline, has reapplied with a new route through Nebraska, and moved forward with building the project’s southern portion, where no government permits are needed.

A very similar debate is occurring in the Northeast, where there is concern that a pipeline now shipping conventional crude oil from South Portland to Montreal will be reversed so that tar sands oil, known scientifically as diluted bitumen, can be pumped in the other direction.

Ground zero for that debate is fast becoming the stretch of pipeline from the Sebago Lakes region through to the tanks in South Portland. Several towns, including Harrison, Bridgton, Casco and Otisfield, have adopted strongly worded resolutions against the use of the pipeline for bitumen. Raymond and Portland have passed resolutions calling for a thorough review by the government of any project involving oil sands. Last week, college students working for a group called Climate Summer rode bicycles through Windham as part of a tour encompassing much of southern Maine to speak with businesses about what they see as the dangers of tar sands oil. Last weekend, another anti-tar sands group held an event on Sebago Lake.

In the strongest show of action yet, a group calling itself Concerned Citizens of South Portland submitted earlier this month a petition with 3,779 signatures, forcing the City Council to take up a new waterfront protection ordinance. The ordinance would ban any enlargement, expansion or construction of any petroleum storage or distribution facilities anywhere in South Portland’s shoreland area or in the city’s shipyard and commercial districts. It would, in effect, stop the pipeline owners from undertaking the kind of work necessary for bitumen to be processed in South Portland.

“We cannot stand by and let South Portland become another victim of the dangerous effects of tar sands oil,” said Mayor Tom Blake, who signed the petition. “While jobs are critical and a concern, no amount of jobs are important if we cannot drink the water, breathe the air, or work the soils we stand on.”

The group hopes to set the tone for other communities along the pipeline.

“We can set an example for the rest of the country of a community standing together against the oil industry giant, ExxonMobil, and perhaps we’ll inspire other communities to do the same,” said the group’s spokeswoman, Carol Masterson.

In South Portland, the worry is that smokestacks will be built on the shore near Bug Light. Near Sebago Lake, the fear is that a pipeline burst would ruin drinking water for hundreds of thousands of people. In both cases, the continued heavy use of carbon-based fuels hangs over the debate.

For its part, the pipeline owners, Portland Pipe Line Corp., said its safety record is stellar and bitumen poses no greater threat than regular crude. The smokestacks, they said, may not be needed to process bitumen due to technological advancements.

It will be interesting to see how the debate plays out, particularly given its similarities to the one in the Midwest. The Nebraska route was changed due to its proximity to a sensitive Sandhills region and the huge Ogallala aquifer, which provides drinking water to almost 2 million people. It’s telling that the answer there was to move the route around the area, and Obama has been supportive of the pipeline since the route has been changed, even calling for the cutting of “red tape” in the project to get it built.

The state Department of Environmental Protection is now studying the safety of shipping bitumen, with a study due early next year. It is hard to see Gov. Paul LePage moving to stop any project; in fact, there are reports of him meeting with pipeline and oil representatives on the issue going back to 2011. There may be a change in state leadership in 2014, but argument that the pipeline switch would create jobs and lower oil prices is a strong one.

Resolutions and petitions may cause a lot of noise now. But when it comes to the final say, they likely won’t be loud enough.

Ben Bragdon, managing editor