<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
10\/30\/2024 <\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Although higher-level authorities supported the report, IBAMA\u2019s president, Rodrigo Agostinho, sent an official letter to Petrobras allowing the state-owned oil company to provide \u201cclarifications\u201d on the points raised in the report before a final decision is made. Petrobras did not immediately reply to a request for comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
IBAMA\u2019s recommendation comes as a setback for Petrobras, which, under Magda Chambriard\u2019s leadership, has been stressing the need to open new exploratory frontiers in oil and gas. Last week, the company\u2019s chief exploration and production officer, Sylvia Anjos, said, \u201cWe will do everything that IBAMA requests.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In May 2023, IBAMA had denied Petrobras\u2019s 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 Amap\u00e1\u2019s Oiapoque Airport on Indigenous communities and a wildlife rescue plan in the event of spills.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In Report 223\/2024, reviewed by Valor, the 26 environmental analysts argued that Petrobras\u2019s revisions do not present a \u201cviable alternative\u201d to adequately mitigate biodiversity loss in case of an oil spill. This issue, according to the analysts, is \u201cespecially critical\u201d given what they described as \u201csignificant marine biodiversity\u201d and the \u201chigh environmental sensitivity of ecosystems likely to be impacted.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThus, we did not find, in the documents analyzed, sufficient elements to reconsider the recommendation to deny the environmental permit and archive this licensing process,\u201d 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\u2019s president issues a final decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Following the report\u2019s release, IBAMA\u2019s offshore oil and gas exploration licensing coordinator, Ivan Werneck Sanchez Bass\u00e8res, issued an official letter acknowledging \u201csignificant\u201d 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\u2019s archival recommendation, advising that the license denial be maintained.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
IBAMA\u2019s general coordinator for marine and coastal project licensing, Itagyba Alvarenga Neto, recommended sending the report to Petrobras for \u201creview and addressing of all issues raised by Ibama\u2019s technical team,\u201d calling this step a \u201creasonable alternative.\u201d Mr. Alvarenga disagreed with Petrobras\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
IBAMA\u2019s licensing director, Claudia Barros, aligned with Mr. Alvarenga\u2019s approach: \u201cIt is deemed reasonable to forward the Technical Report \u2026 to the company for review and response to all issues raised by IBAMA\u2019s technical team,\u201d Ms. Barros said. In September, she had estimated a resolution on the matter by the end of the year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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 \u201cuse the pre-existing, licensed airstrip within its already established operational capacity without expanding capacity,\u201d 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 Amap\u00e1.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the report, the analysts noted that IBAMA did not question the Oiapoque airstrip\u2019s legality, which Petrobras will use as a support base for drilling activities. They also pointed out that Petrobras\u2019s environmental study indicates the airport\u2019s use \u201crepresents a 3,000% increase in its activity,\u201d with flights over areas where no other routes exist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe fact that the airstrip is licensed and the company\u2019s intended use falls within its operational capacity does not mean the project will not cause specific impacts due to its presence in the region,\u201d the report says.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Petrobras had also proposed a new Wildlife Protection Plan, which included setting up a wildlife rescue base in Bel\u00e9m, 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 Cassipor\u00e9, a district of Oiapoque.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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 \u201cinconsistencies\u201d in the rescue strategy, including the definition of response teams, travel times, adverse \u201cmetoceanographic\u201d conditions, and the inability to use the drillship or rescue and stabilization vessels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
*By F\u00e1bio Couto \u2014 Rio de Janeiro<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Source: Valor International<\/p>\n\n\n\n