The recalculated figures<\/a> showed a 13,000 per cent increase in benzene levels \u2014 known to cause some cancers \u2014 revised from 4.12 tonnes, to 556.9 tonnes.<\/p>\n The figures also showed an 11,000 per cent increase in toluene emissions \u2014 which can irritate the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract \u2014 from 5 tonnes, to 496 tonnes.<\/p>\n The oil and gas giant said its levels of emissions were well within government guidelines and posed no increased health risk to the community or workers.\u00a0<\/p>\n However, the total level of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) \u2014 the group of colourless chemicals emitted as a by-product from the gas extraction process \u2014 was revised from 1,618 tonnes to 3,562.\u00a0<\/p>\n Just days earlier, on October 12, Inpex reported an oil spill at the facility.\u00a0<\/p>\n Inpex reported an oil spill at its facility earlier this month. (Supplied)<\/p>\n The NT Environment Protection Authority (NT EPA) said 36,000 litres of burning hot “heating medium” oil leaked from a gas processing unit across the plant into the Darwin Harbour and stormwater drains.\u00a0<\/p>\n But government inspections the next day found “no off-site impacts”.<\/p>\n The federal Department of Climate Change, Energy, and the Environment (DCCEEW) said it was reviewing the incidents and considering enforcement action.<\/p>\n “The department will consider all appropriate enforcement action in line with the department’s compliance policy, if Inpex are found to be non-compliant with their EPBC Act approval,” a spokesperson said.Workers flag safety concerns<\/p>\n Caleb Burke from The Australian Workers’ Union \u2014 which represented Inpex employees \u2014 said the incidents sparked health and safety fears from union members, as questions mounted over whether they were being exposed to hazardous pollution.\u00a0<\/p>\n Gas giant Inpex under investigation after admitting to pollution error<\/a><\/p>\n The NT government has opened an investigation into oil and gas giant Inpex after the company admitted it has been under-reporting potentially toxic emissions from its flagship Ichthys LNG plant on Darwin Harbour.<\/p>\n He said he was not aware of Inpex informing employees of the risks of the emissions and, over the past few days, members had increasingly been reaching out to the union for information.\u00a0<\/p>\n “Our concern, first and foremost, is the health and safety of all our members working out there,” he said.\u00a0<\/p>\n “Inpex is putting at risk our members.<\/p>\n “These are our local people in the Territory \u2014 mums, dads working on the facility \u2014 and we don’t want them unnecessarily exposed to risk.”<\/p>\n Inpex senior vice president Bill Townsend said workers had been told there was “no cause for health concern”, citing air quality monitoring \u2013 both on-site and in the Darwin region \u2013 which he said had “consistently” shown emissions were within government limits.\u00a0<\/p>\n Inpex workers have told their union about health and safety concerns. (Supplied: Inpex)<\/p>\n But the company said it relied on NT government monitors off-site, which the NT EPA said did not measure VOCs.\u00a0<\/p>\n Calls for inquiry<\/p>\n Climate scientist Bill Hare said Inpex’s “very concerning” calculation errors raised serious questions about how the company’s reporting failures went undetected for so long.<\/p>\n “Everyone in the vicinity of the plant \u2014 whether they’re working around it or in the airshed, away from the plant \u2014 should be worried about these quite toxic chemicals being leaked,” he said.<\/p>\n “They have both short and long-term health implications, short-term being affecting respiratory health and longer term [they] can be carcinogenic.”<\/p>\n Bill Hare says the errors are shocking. (ABC News: Rhiannon Shine)<\/p>\n Inpex said its benzene emission levels were “five times lower than monitoring investigating levels”, but Mr Hare said the “shocking” scale of the necessary recalculations increased uncertainty about past data and future risk.<\/p>\n Mr Hare said Inpex’s assurances that emissions fell within guidelines “should be taken with a grain of salt”, as Australia’s air quality standards were weaker than those of the US and did not align with the World Health Organisation<\/a>.<\/p>\n But he said, even if the rules were robust, the regulator had been asleep at the wheel and there needed to be “some kind of independent inquiry” into the operation of the NT EPA.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n