Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
4 min of reading 
0 comments 
MPF Recommends Suspending Oil Licensing in the Mouth of the Amazon and Demands That Petrobras and Ibama Assess All Impacts Jointly and Transparently.
The mouth of the Amazon has once again taken center stage in one of the country’s most delicate debates. On one side, the economic interest tied to oil exploration. On the other, warnings about environmental and social risks.
Now, the Federal Public Ministry (MPF) has raised the pressure by recommending the immediate suspension of parts of the licensing and demanding more transparency from Petrobras and Ibama.
According to prosecutors working in Pará and Amapá, the way the project is being conducted may conceal the true magnitude of the impacts that the activity can generate in the mouth of the Amazon, one of the most sensitive areas of the Brazilian coast.
-
Brazilian giant expands borders in the Southeast: Petrobras confirms new oil discovery in ultra-deep waters in the pre-salt of the Campos Basin.
-
Alert in the global energy market: Severe tropical cyclone hits the coast and disrupts gas production at major plants in Australia, threatening global supply.
-
Petrobras finds high-quality oil in the pre-salt at 113 km from RJ and reignites expectations about strategic reserves in the Campos Basin.
-
Ocyan opens registrations for startups focused on innovation in the oil and gas sector and will select projects for Innovation Day with the support of Nexio.
MPF Points Out Contradictions in Petrobras’ Project
One of the main focuses of the recommendation is the FZA-M-59 exploration block. According to the MPF, there is a clear difference between what Petrobras informs the public and what it technically plans.
In meetings with communities and in promotional materials, the company only mentions drilling one well, called Morpho.
However, in a more recent internal schedule, the environmental studies already consider the opening of three other wells in the same block, identified as Marolo, Manga, and Maracujá, between 2027 and 2029.
For the MPF, this strategy of presenting one well at a time ends up masking the real effects of the project on the mouth of the Amazon.
When four wells operate in the same region, the risks accumulate. The noise from the machines increases. The flow of ships grows. The chance of spills also rises.
Therefore, the agency argues that the impacts should be assessed jointly, considering the cumulative and synergistic effects.
Seismic Research Also Comes Under Scrutiny
In addition to the wells, seismic research is also a concern. This type of study uses air cannons to emit very loud sound waves on the seabed, helping locate oil reserves.
The MPF states that the licensing of these research activities in the mouth of the Amazon is progressing without primary data. This means that the responsible company may not have gone to the site to gather comprehensive information about the ecosystem.
The region houses the Canyon of the Amazon River and areas of coral reefs. These are considered extremely sensitive environments. Technical opinions from Ibama itself, according to the MPF, indicate that the required environmental diagnosis has not yet been presented.
Without this information, the so-called Technical Informative Meetings held with the population would be invalid. After all, society would be consulted about a project whose real impacts have not yet been fully studied.
National Sovereignty is Questioned
Another point that draws attention is the use of the argument of “national sovereignty” and “energy independence” to justify exploration in the mouth of the Amazon. The MPF contests this logic.
In the current model, known as the concession regime, the extracted oil becomes the property of the companies that win the auctions. In the 5th Cycle of the Permanent Offering of Concessions, for example, the blocks were allocated to a consortium largely formed by large foreign companies, such as Chevron, Equinor, ExxonMobil, Petrogal, Karoon, CNODC, and Shell.
According to the prosecutors, this means that a large part of the profits goes to shareholders outside Brazil, while the environmental risks remain concentrated in the mouth of the Amazon and in local communities.
Direct Requests to Ibama and Petrobras
To reduce risks, the MPF made specific demands. To Ibama, it requested not to authorize the Marolo, Manga, and Maracujá wells without complete studies. It also requested that any advancement in FZA-M-59 only occur after the joint analysis of the four wells.
Additionally, the agency recommended suspending the public comment period and meetings with the population until the seismic research studies are accurate.
To Petrobras, the MPF demanded the updating of social communication projects and informative bulletins, to clarify that four wells are planned, and not just one. It also requested the correction of all official information that currently treats the project as if it were limited to a single well in the mouth of the Amazon.
Do you think that exploring oil in the mouth of the Amazon is still worth the risk, or do the obstacles point to a project that will do more harm to Brazil?
-
-
-
-
4 pessoas reagiram a isso.