Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
3 min of reading 
0 comments 
Temporary measure creates emergency tax, while sector warns of permanent effects on investments, predictability, and cost of capital in Brazil
Initially, the 12% export tax on oil, established by MP 1.340/2026, emerges as an immediate response to pressures in the fuel market.
Moreover, as presented by the federal government in 2026, the measure was designed to be temporary.
At the same time, the mechanism provides for an automatic reduction of the rate to zero if the international price falls.
-
Alert from the world’s largest oil company: blockade in the Strait of Hormuz removes 1 billion barrels from the market and may take time to normalize.
-
Global oil market loses 1 billion barrels and energy tension increases risk of new global crisis, warns Aramco
-
A 45 km² oil slick appears in satellite images near Kharg Island, an area that accounts for 90% of Iran’s oil exports.
-
While Petrobras operates at 7,000 meters in the pre-salt layer, China is extracting oil and gas at 10,910 meters onshore — Shenditake 1 is the world’s first onshore well to exceed 10 km.
Thus, the proposal seeks to mitigate external shocks while simultaneously stimulating greater supply to the domestic market.
sector reaction indicates regulatory risk
On the other hand, the Brazilian Institute of Oil and Gas (IBP) reacted critically to the measure.
According to the entity, still in 2026, there is a rise in regulatory risk and loss of competitiveness of Brazilian oil.
Furthermore, the IBP emphasizes that the new tax overlaps with existing mechanisms.
Among them are royalties, special participation, and profits outlined in sharing contracts, which already capture extraordinary income from the sector.
In this context, when a tax arises outside the original modeling, the impact is not limited to immediate revenue collection.
Consequently, it begins to influence the attractiveness of projects, cost of capital, and perception of stability in the country.
economic impact and projected revenue
At the same time, there is an often-underestimated economic effect.
According to federal government estimates for 2026, the measure could generate around R$ 32.1 billion in revenue.
On the other hand, parallel compensation policies are being implemented.
Among them, the subsidy for diesel and the reduction of PIS/Cofins in segments of the chain stand out.
Still, in the oil sector, regulatory predictability is considered essential.
This is because, in addition to the nominal rate, it is this stability that supports investment decisions.
Consequently, it also defines development timelines and long-term contracts.
predictability as a key factor for investments
Thus, institutional predictability gains strategic weight.
This is because investors analyze not only current costs but also future risks.
Thus, unexpected changes can be incorporated into the return calculation.
Furthermore, they can raise the so-called country risk premium.
Therefore, even temporary measures can generate lasting effects in the sector.
dilemma between emergency response and institutional stability
At its core, the discussion is not limited to the State’s ability to react to the rising barrel price.
Indeed, this reaction is considered legitimate in scenarios of international pressure.
However, the central issue lies in the institutional coherence of the measure.
This is because, if there is no regulatory consistency, an emergency instrument can become permanent in the market’s perception.
Thus, what was created as a specific response can be interpreted as a structural risk.
In light of this, the oil sector, one of the most relevant in the Brazilian trade balance, begins to operate under greater uncertainty.
In this scenario, the question remains: will the measure be able to balance economic urgency and regulatory stability without compromising the future of investments?
Be the first to react!