Petrochemical production at Middle Arm is still part of an environmental impact assessment for the proposed industrial precinct, despite Chief Minister Natasha Fyles’s recent denials that it would be part of the precinct, government documents show.

On Tuesday, Ms Fyles attempted to explain why references to petrochemicals were recently removed from government websites, while also trying to define what petrochemicals were.

An Environment Protection Authority environmental impact assessment document published on September 29 – 34 days before MsFyles first denied petrochemicals would be part of the precinct – states that the agency has accepted the government’s terms of reference for an impact statement for the proposed precinct.

The government’s description for the development was for “sustainable industries” with a focus on low emission petrochemicals, renewable hydrogen, carbon capture storage, and minerals processing.

It is still on the EPA website and is the most recently published document about the project.

In an interview on ABC radio on Tuesday, when asked directly why the government removed references to petrochemicals off some of the government’s websites, Ms Fyles blamed the Environment Centre NT’s social media campaign against petrochemicals, despite petrochemicals still being part of the current EIS application.

However, Ms Fyles had said as recently as Saturday that she did not know what industries would be going there.

“So unfortunately, we saw some scaremongering to put it blankly, we had you know, pictures of smokestacks and people being unable to breathe and that’s not what this is about,” she said.

“So the definition of petrochemicals starts a whole new conversation, but this is about industries into the future.

“But we are trying to provide an opportunity that the Territory uniquely has because of solar mainly, as a renewable energy.

“It’s based on renewable energy. It is a transition to the future so that we can see investment in manufacturing and those opportunities here in the Territory.”

Ms Fyles added that when the Middle Arm industrial precinct was first discussed, “there was different information that was provided. I’ve made it really clear since I’ve become Chief Minister that this project is really important to the Northern Territory, but it does need to make sure that we match those other goals that we have around 50 per cent renewables and net zero emissions by 2050”.

“We are being open with people.”

Former chief minister Michael Gunner resigned in May and was replaced by Ms Fyles days later, but it wasn’t until November 1, that Ms Fyles seems to first state publicly that petrochemicals would not be part of the Middle Arm precinct.

What are petrochemicals and why is the government suddenly rejecting them?

A petrochemical is most often considered any substance obtained from petroleum or natural gas, while low-emission petrochemical production relates to the fuel used as the energy for the manufacturing of the product.

The Environmental Impact Statement application for Middle Arm was made by the Planning Department to the EPA in January and makes no mention of solar, despite Ms Fyles’s more recent claims.

Environment Centre NT director Dr Kirsty Howey said Ms Fyles was “greenwashing” the project and that the Chief Minister needed to explain what was proposed for Middle Arm.

“The NT Government appears to have responded to community concerns about the $1.5 billion cash splash for gas and petrochemical expansion at Middle Arm by simply deleting the word petrochemicals from its websites,” she said.

“Meanwhile, the terms of reference for the NT EPA assessment of Middle Arm clearly list petrochemicals as one of the industries planned for the project, and the Chief Minister doesn’t seem able to explain exactly what is planned for Darwin Harbour.

“This is greenwashing at best, and a very bad look. Territorians deserve to know the truth.”

The Chief Minister’s denial of petrochemicals

On November 1, Ms Fyles first claimed on ABC radio that the proposed Middle Arm manufacturing precinct will not include a “petrochemical plant” despite the government’s “gas strategy” website at the time clearly stating that the precinct would include “low-emission petrochemicals production, including ammonia, urea and ethylene” used to produce plastics.

Ms Fyles seemingly implied that the government’s own website was “factually wrong”, while also claiming her government welcomes scrutiny about its actions and “have got nothing to hide”.

Her radio interview followed the Environment Centre NT’s social media campaign where it said petroleum-based manufacturing was harmful to the health of the communities that surrounded it, and to the environment.

Ms Fyles accused the centre of being factually wrong and said there were opportunities such as solar, hydrogen, and green hydrogen, adding that “everything is out in the open around this project.”

The day before Ms Fyles’s first denial, federal Resources Minister Madeleine King said the NT Government had been working to attract businesses to the precinct and that the Federal Government would work cooperatively to see it built, while also appearing to contradict Ms Fyles.

“It’s possible there will be petrochemicals here,” she said.

“But I also point out that petrochemicals are part of our everyday life. It’s part of advanced manufacturing in the modern world. I reject the demonisation of a product which is vast – petrochemicals are everywhere.”

In response, Ms Howey said Ms Fyles’s comments that a petrochemicals plant would not be at the precinct was the first time she had heard that and “welcomed” the comments.

“While we welcome this statement, it directly contradicts what Resources Minister Madeleine King said on radio only yesterday, as well as information on Northern Territory Government websites, presentations given by members of the NT Gas Taskforce, and indeed the documents submitted to the NTEPA for environmental assessment,” she told the NT Independent.

The Federal Albanese Government re-committed the previous Coalition Government’s $1.5 billion for the Middle Arm project in late October’s budget, which will see the money to develop the precinct rolled out over the next seven years.

The ABC reported on Saturday that references to Middle Arm being a place for “low emission petrochemicals, renewable hydrogen and minerals processing”, were removed from government websites.

But Ms Fyles would not say in the article if petrochemicals would be prohibited at Middle Arm.

“What I’m saying is we don’t know the industries that will go there,” she said.

“That is something that will be decided into the future.”

Ms Fyles also said there would be multiple environmental assessments of the project, but first a “whole of project assessment”, which would focus on the reference to petrochemicals, and then the individual businesses within the area will have to be environmentally assessed again.