Portuguese 
ANP Proposes Minimum Capital Requirements: R$200 Million for Fuel Producers, R$10 Million for Distributors, and R$1 Million for Resellers, Allowing Two Years for Compliance from Existing Licensees.
The board’s decision was announced on September 4. Following that, there will be a 45-day window for contributions, followed by a public hearing.
This proposal was not an isolated initiative by the agency. According to the ANP, it aligns regulations with Supplementary Law No. 225, dated January 8, 2026, known as the Taxpayer Defense Code, which amended Law No. 9.478/1997.
The Three Levels of the New Requirements
The proposed minimum capital varies according to the segment of the supply chain, and the requirements are notably steep.
-
Santos Transports Seawater from the Beaufort Sea Over 75 km, Injects 40,000 Barrels Daily into Reservoir, and Accelerates Oil Field in Alaska Toward 80,000 Barrels Per Day
-
Panama Invests US$191.7 Million to Fully Control 131-Kilometer Pipeline Connecting Atlantic and Pacific, Handling 10 Million Barrels Monthly
-
Ibama Adjusts Operational License, Authorizes Petrobras to Drill Three Additional Wells in Amazon’s FZA-M-59 Block with New Restrictions
-
ANP Approves 24 Onshore Blocks in Potiguar Basin, but Areas Will Only Be Offered After 6th Cycle of Permanent Offering Scheduled for October 7
Liquid fuel resellers, such as gas stations, would need to demonstrate R$1 million. Distributors, who purchase from refineries and supply gas stations, would have to show R$10 million.
At the top are producers of petroleum and gas derivatives, who would need to meet a requirement of R$200 million. This represents a two-hundred-fold difference between the top and bottom of the supply chain.
This package affects six regulations at once: resolutions 852/2021, 935/2023, 936/2023, 948/2023, 950/2023, and 987/2025. They cover producers of derivatives, distributors and resellers of aviation fuel, automotive retail resellers, liquid distributors, and producers of biofuels.
Understanding Capital Requirements
It’s important to clarify this concept, as it is often misunderstood. Minimum capital is not money sitting idle in an account or a guaranteed deposit somewhere.
It refers to the value that partners declare they have invested in the business, as recorded in the articles of incorporation. It serves as a measure of backing: how much the owners have actually put into the business before it starts operating.
Thus, the requirement acts as a filter for entry. The logic is straightforward: those responsible for a business dealing with flammable products, collecting taxes embedded in the price, and carrying the potential for environmental damage must have assets proportional to the risk they take on.
There is a known context behind this. The Brazilian fuel sector has long dealt with shell companies established to evade taxes, adulterate products, or launder money, which disappear when regulatory oversight arrives.
The Cost Beyond the Monetary Value
The figures are striking, but they may not be the most challenging aspect of the proposal. Accompanying them is a much more cumbersome documentation requirement for those operating illegally.
The agency seeks proof of the origin and legality of the funds, certified by an independent auditor’s report registered with the Comissão de Valores Mobiliários (CVM), Brazil’s securities regulator. It’s not enough to declare capital: one must demonstrate where it came from, with a qualified third party attesting.
Moreover, it requires the identification of the ultimate beneficial owner of the legal entity, meaning the individual who truly controls the company, behind any potential layers of corporate structure.
These two items are the heart of the change. Capital value, in principle, can be realized by someone; identifying the real owner and proving the source of the funds is what truly complicates matters for structures set up to conceal the controller.
For those already authorized, the adjustment period is two years, with the exception of liquid fuel distributors. This staggered approach acknowledges that an operating company cannot change its corporate structure overnight.
On the other side, predictable criticism will come from smaller resellers. A family-run gas station in a small town will argue that R$1 million in minimum capital is a barrier for those who already operate on narrow margins.
It’s hard not to see the underlying tension of all entry regulation: raising the bar cleans the market, but it also concentrates it. The 45-day consultation period exists precisely to calibrate where this balance lies.
Nothing changes just yet. What exists is a proposal open to contributions, and the text that emerges from the public hearing could be very different from what entered.
It is important to gauge the sector that the rule will affect. Brazil has tens of thousands of gas stations spread across all municipalities, along with hundreds of distributors and a smaller number of producers.
This pyramid explains the design of the requirement. The base is huge and fragmented, the middle concentrates financial volume, and the top handles products on an industrial scale.
There is also a tax element that adds weight to the discussion. Fuel carries a high embedded tax burden in its price, and it is precisely this portion that tax evasion targets.
When a company fails to pay what it should, it can sell below the price of those who pay everything. The compliant competitor loses customers not for being worse, but for adhering to the law.
It is this distortion that the agency is trying to address through entry regulations.
However, the minimum capital requirement alone does not solve the issue. A shell company with integralized capital remains a shell company, which is why the auditor’s report and the identification of the ultimate beneficial owner weigh more in the measure’s effectiveness than the capital amount itself.
Additionally, it is worth noting the timeline. According to the proposal, there are 45 days of consultation followed by a public hearing, and only after that will the board decide on the final text.
Therefore, between this week’s decision and the norm coming into effect lies a months-long path, during which the sector has formal space to propose adjustments to the amounts and deadlines for compliance.
Nonetheless, the direction appears to be set. As per the legal basis invoked, the change stems from a complementary law passed in January, meaning the agency is not proposing its own innovation, but rather aligning its resolutions with an obligation that already exists.
Does requiring R$1 million in capital from a neighborhood gas station clean the sector or merely push away small entrepreneurs?
