10/30/2024
Twenty-six analysts from the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) signed a report recommending the environmental permit denial for Petrobras to drill a well in Block FZA-M-59, located in the Foz do Amazonas Basin on the Equatorial Margin, should be upheld. The team listed technical issues they believe prevent reversing the previous decision against granting the permit.
Although higher-level authorities supported the report, IBAMA’s president, Rodrigo Agostinho, sent an official letter to Petrobras allowing the state-owned oil company to provide “clarifications” on the points raised in the report before a final decision is made. Petrobras did not immediately reply to a request for comment.
IBAMA’s recommendation comes as a setback for Petrobras, which, under Magda Chambriard’s leadership, has been stressing the need to open new exploratory frontiers in oil and gas. Last week, the company’s chief exploration and production officer, Sylvia Anjos, said, “We will do everything that IBAMA requests.”
In May 2023, IBAMA had denied Petrobras’s request for an environmental permit to drill a well in deep waters in the Foz do Amazonas. Petrobras appealed to the agency and submitted several documents revising environmental plans to overturn the decision. Key points in the revised plans focused on the impact of air support operations at Amapá’s Oiapoque Airport on Indigenous communities and a wildlife rescue plan in the event of spills.
In Report 223/2024, reviewed by Valor, the 26 environmental analysts argued that Petrobras’s revisions do not present a “viable alternative” to adequately mitigate biodiversity loss in case of an oil spill. This issue, according to the analysts, is “especially critical” given what they described as “significant marine biodiversity” and the “high environmental sensitivity of ecosystems likely to be impacted.”
“Thus, we did not find, in the documents analyzed, sufficient elements to reconsider the recommendation to deny the environmental permit and archive this licensing process,” the 26 analysts said. The report was electronically signed between October 10 and 11. However, subsequent communications have left room for further input from the company until IBAMA’s president issues a final decision.
Following the report’s release, IBAMA’s offshore oil and gas exploration licensing coordinator, Ivan Werneck Sanchez Bassères, issued an official letter acknowledging “significant” technical improvements by Petrobras in emergency response plans but still considered information regarding wildlife rescue strategies for oil-affected animals insufficient to reconsider the process’s archival recommendation, advising that the license denial be maintained.
IBAMA’s general coordinator for marine and coastal project licensing, Itagyba Alvarenga Neto, recommended sending the report to Petrobras for “review and addressing of all issues raised by Ibama’s technical team,” calling this step a “reasonable alternative.” Mr. Alvarenga disagreed with Petrobras’s positions on the impact of air traffic on Indigenous communities but acknowledged progress on the wildlife plan, though he did not find the advancements sufficient for plan approval.
IBAMA’s licensing director, Claudia Barros, aligned with Mr. Alvarenga’s approach: “It is deemed reasonable to forward the Technical Report … to the company for review and response to all issues raised by IBAMA’s technical team,” Ms. Barros said. In September, she had estimated a resolution on the matter by the end of the year.
Air traffic and potential impacts on Indigenous communities in the area were among the reasons Petrobras appealed the license denial. In its revised studies, Petrobras argued it would “use the pre-existing, licensed airstrip within its already established operational capacity without expanding capacity,” and that the noise from aircraft is not a direct impact of drilling but rather of the airport, which is licensed by the State Environment Secretariat of Amapá.
In the report, the analysts noted that IBAMA did not question the Oiapoque airstrip’s legality, which Petrobras will use as a support base for drilling activities. They also pointed out that Petrobras’s environmental study indicates the airport’s use “represents a 3,000% increase in its activity,” with flights over areas where no other routes exist.
“The fact that the airstrip is licensed and the company’s intended use falls within its operational capacity does not mean the project will not cause specific impacts due to its presence in the region,” the report says.
Petrobras had also proposed a new Wildlife Protection Plan, which included setting up a wildlife rescue base in Belém, but IBAMA deemed the distance too long in case of an accident. Petrobras then proposed establishing an advanced wildlife response base in Oiapoque, enabling access by sea, river, or air, and potentially installing a mobile reception unit in Vila Velha do Cassiporé, a district of Oiapoque.
The rescue proposals in Oiapoque were considered to have the potential to reduce response times in case of an oil spill, but the analysts noted “inconsistencies” in the rescue strategy, including the definition of response teams, travel times, adverse “metoceanographic” conditions, and the inability to use the drillship or rescue and stabilization vessels.
*By Fábio Couto — Rio de Janeiro
Source: Valor International