"Unacceptable acts": Government orders Enap to cooperate over emissions irregularities

The core allegation is that Enap’s sulfur-emissions reports were not complete or accurate. The SMA accused the company of “ocultación, alteración e imprecisión deliberada” in technical information about sulfur recovery at the Aconcagua Refinery. This matters because authorities and the public rely on these reports to judge whether emissions stay within legal limits.

A key example was flaring, the burning of gases in refinery torches. The SMA said Enap historically left this stream out of official reports, even though it was the refinery’s second-largest emissions source. After adding it, the regulator estimated sulfur dioxide emissions at 1,277 tonnes in 2023 and 1,168 tonnes in 2024.

The SMA filed four environmental charges. Two were preliminarily classified as gravísimos, including reporting failures connected with sulfur recovery and sulfur dioxide limits. Chile’s energy and finance ministries called the recognized facts unacceptable and ordered Enap to keep cooperating with the investigations. Enap said it was reviewing the charges and would decide its next steps.

The Superintendencia del Medio Ambiente, or SMA, is Chile’s government agency responsible for supervising compliance with environmental rules. Its work includes inspecting regulated activities, reviewing environmental monitoring, investigating alleged breaches, and bringing charges. These powers matter because companies must demonstrate that their operations and reports meet Chilean environmental requirements.

In this case, the SMA examined Enap’s Aconcagua Refinery. It alleged failures involving sulfur recovery, sulfur dioxide emissions, continuous monitoring, and nighttime noise. The regulator also reestimated emissions after identifying that flaring had been omitted from Enap’s official reports. It calculated 1,277 tonnes in 2023 and 1,168 tonnes in 2024.

The SMA’s authority does not itself establish final guilt. Enap can analyze the charges and respond within the set deadlines, while investigations by the SMA and Public Prosecutor’s Office continue. The ministries instructed Enap to cooperate, and the company’s board and management must address corrective measures and strengthen controls.

Chile’s stated maximum for Enap’s sulfur dioxide emissions was 1,145 tonnes per year. The SMA alleged that Enap exceeded this limit after recalculating the refinery’s emissions. This comparison matters because the legal threshold defines when reported pollution becomes a regulatory breach.

For 2023, the SMA estimated 1,277 tonnes, which is 132 tonnes above the limit. For 2024, it estimated 1,168 tonnes, or 23 tonnes above the limit. The regulator said Enap’s official reports had historically omitted flaring, the burning of gases in refinery torches. It described flaring as the refinery’s second-most relevant emissions source.

The figures are allegations in an ongoing investigation, not a final judgment. The SMA classified the sulfur-related charges as gravísimos. Enap said it was analyzing the charges and supporting records before deciding its course of action. The ministries called for active cooperation while authorities establish any responsibilities.

If the alleged violations are confirmed, Enap faces major financial and regulatory consequences. The article says the company could receive a cumulative fine of up to 22,000 UTA, estimated at about US$19 million. Two of the four charges were preliminarily classified as gravísimos, making the case especially serious.

The alleged breaches cover several areas. Enap allegedly failed to reach 98% annual efficiency in its sulfur-recovery system from 2023 to 2025. It allegedly exceeded sulfur dioxide limits, failed to validate continuous emissions monitoring after the cracking unit restarted, and exceeded nighttime noise limits. The noise reached 57 decibels against a limit of 45.

Financial penalties are not the only possible consequence described. The board and management must ensure corrective measures and stronger controls over emissions measurement and reporting. The SMA and Public Prosecutor’s Office are investigating. Enap said it was reviewing the charges and would choose its response within the established deadlines.

A company’s board and management are responsible for governance, internal controls, and compliance with applicable rules. In an environmental case, that includes ensuring that emissions are measured correctly, monitored continuously when required, and reported truthfully. This matters because regulators and the public need reliable information to assess pollution.

The article links this responsibility to Enap’s reporting problems. The SMA said flaring had been omitted from historical sulfur reports and that Enap had not validated its continuous emissions monitoring system for several parameters after the cracking unit restarted. These are control and verification failures, not only production issues.

The energy and finance ministries said Enap’s board and administration must secure corrective measures and strengthen controls over emissions measurement and reporting. They also demanded active cooperation with the SMA and Public Prosecutor’s Office. Whether specific individuals or the company bear legal responsibility remains to be established through the ongoing investigations.

A sulfur-recovery system is refinery equipment that removes sulfur compounds from process streams and recovers sulfur rather than allowing those compounds to leave with exhaust gases. This matters because sulfur-containing fuels and refinery gases can generate sulfur dioxide when burned. Efficient recovery reduces the amount that reaches the atmosphere and helps a refinery meet environmental limits.

At Enap’s Aconcagua Refinery, the SMA alleged that the system did not achieve the required minimum annual efficiency of 98% between 2023 and 2025. The regulator also alleged that Enap exceeded the sulfur dioxide limit after flaring emissions were included. Flaring means burning gases in refinery torches, and the SMA called it the second-largest emissions source.

The sulfur-recovery and sulfur-dioxide allegations were classified as gravísimos. Enap is reviewing the charges and evidence. If the findings are confirmed, the company must correct operations and improve measurement and reporting controls. The article does not describe the system’s detailed engineering design.

Sulfur dioxide is an air pollutant released when sulfur-containing materials are burned. It can irritate the eyes and airways, worsen asthma, and contribute to fine particles and acid deposition. Refineries may also emit particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and other pollutants. Together, these can reduce air quality and increase risks for respiratory and cardiovascular health, especially among vulnerable people. These health effects are established knowledge beyond the article.

The case involved several monitored pollutants: particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and gas flow. The SMA alleged that Enap had not validated its continuous emissions monitoring system for these parameters after the cracking unit restarted with a Wet Gas Scrubber. Reliable monitoring is important because authorities need accurate data to detect exceedances and require corrections.

The article does not report a confirmed health impact on residents. Enap stated that no evidence linked the reported events to an impact on the population. The investigations will clarify the facts, while stronger monitoring and reporting controls could improve oversight of refinery emissions.