Adjudication No. 1178 (October 2002) [2002] APC 33

Adjudication No. 1178 (October 2002)

The Australian Press Council has upheld in part a complaint from Mobil Australia against a report in The Advertiser, Adelaide, about a shipment of naptha to the company's refinery at Port Stanvac in South Australia in early August.

The company complained the 1 August 2002 article was harmfully inaccurate. The report linked a shipment of naptha from an experimental shale oil plant in Queensland to fears about the carcinogenic qualities of shale oil. Naptha, which Mobil says is one of the cleanest feedstocks in the world, is a derivative of shale oil (or crude oil) used in the production of petrol.

The report says the World Health Organisation lists shale oil as a carcinogen, and quotes a Greenpeace campaigner as saying that nearby residents and workers at the Port Stanvac plant should be concerned about the impact on them of refining "shale oil". The story is headlined Security tight at Port Stanvac for dirty fuel, and a highlighted quote in the middle of the story refers to "a proven carcinogenic."

The newspaper says the journalist contacted Mobil, and made inquiries in pursuing the story. Indeed, the story quotes a Mobil spokesperson as confirming the shipment of naptha.

However the company says the discussion with the reporter was about naptha, not shale oil. If it had been asked, it would have pointed out the difference between naptha and shale oil.

A letter from Mobil under the headline Nothing to fear was published in The Advertiser two days later. The company claims its major concern with the story was the way it linked naptha and cancer, but the letter from the general manager of Mobil's Adelaide refinery does not specifically deal with this issue and simply states that the product "is among the cleanest feedstocks available for use in any Australian refinery".

The Press Council is conscious of the sensitivity of the issue and believes that it is incumbent on newspapers to be especially vigilant when dealing with emotive issues surrounding public health. In this case the differences between naptha and shale oil have been ill-defined, with most of the references being about shale oil, which was not being shipped to Port Stanvac. It was incumbent on the newspaper to ensure that the difference was properly drawn in the story.

However, in mitigation, the newspaper took prompt action to allow the company to express its view by means of the published letter.