The mounting pressure on Brazil’s federal environmental agency (IBAMA) to approve the disastrous project to extract oil from the mouth of the Amazon River (see here and here) should be interpreted as evidence that President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (known as “Lula”) fails to comprehend both the climate crisis and the consequences of the oil project. While this lack of understanding is serious, it would be even more alarming if he fully understood these issues and yet persisted on his current course.

The project to extract oil from the mouth of the Amazon runs counter to Brazil’s national interest for several reasons. The impact on the climate would be severe if this oil field (block FZA-M-59) were to be opened. Not only would this field result in substantial emissions, but its approval is also seen as a key step toward enabling the industry to exploit 47 new blocks in the mouth of the Amazon that will be offered by Brazil’s National Petroleum Agency (ANP) in an auction scheduled for June 17^th.

The financial logic behind ventures like the one Lula is advocating means that the impact of this oil field would be much greater than that from the same quantity extracted from existing fields. It is estimated that it would take five years for the new field to begin commercial extraction, and another five years to recoup the initial investment. Since companies are unwilling to settle for zero profits, extraction would likely continue for many more years—well beyond the point when the world must cease using oil as fuel. This is why the International Energy Agency concluded that no new oil fields should be opened anywhere in the world, and that extraction should be limited to existing fields, with production declining to zero by 2050. Furthermore, Brazil’s state‑owned oil company (Petrobras) has already announced that it intends to continue extracting oil beyond 2050.

The argument put forward by Petrobras’ president, Magda Chambriard, that the company needs to open the new field at the mouth of the Amazon to secure enough oil for domestic use is clearly flawed, since Brazil currently extracts more oil than it consumes and exports one‑third of its production (see here and here). Similarly, the argument made by the Minister of Mines and Energy, Alexandre Silveira, that the new oil field is unrelated to global warming because only global oil demand needs to be curtailed—and that this oil will fund the energy transition—is equally flawed (see here, here and here).

During February 2025, President Lula has been particularly attentive to the new president of the Senate (Daví Alcolumbre), who is also one of the leaders of the openly transactional “Centrão” coalition of political parties (see here and here). Alcolumbre’s political rhetoric centers on the claim that this oil will bring socioeconomic benefits to his state of Amapá, which is closest to the drilling site. Unfortunately, Brazil’s experience with other oil and gas projects—and the extensive literature on the “resource curse”—suggests the opposite (see reviews here and here).

In addition to its impact on the climate crisis, the project poses very serious environmental risks. The possibility of a spill is a major concern (see here, here and here), and the assumption that Petrobras could both prevent a spill and contain its effects should be seen as sheer hubris—a fatal flaw reminiscent of ancient Greek tragedies. Despite claims that Petrobras has extensive experience and capacity, this does not guarantee it can control a spill. Simply carrying out wildlife rescue operations on the surface, as is currently discussed in licensing, is insufficient—the company must be able to stop the spill at its source.

During the major oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, oil gushed uncontrollably for five months until, after many attempts, British Petroleum fortunately managed to cap the well using a concrete dome suspended from a vessel on the surface by a 1.5‑km cable. This incident demonstrated that no one in the world has the capacity to control a spill at a depth of 1.5 km. The first well at the mouth of the Amazon (block FZA-M-59) would be drilled at a depth of 2.88 km. Moreover, the ocean currents at the planned site are more complex and variable than those in the Gulf of Mexico. At the planned oil field site, the surface current flows north, but at a depth of 201 m , a current flows in the opposite direction, making it very difficult to plug a leak from a vessel on the surface. IBAMA’s opinion is clear: “it is a fact that there are several peculiarities and uncertainties inherent to the region that could make it difficult to effectively combat an accident involving the activity.”

If there were a leak, eight countries would be affected. Not only do ocean currents move spilled oil, but prevailing winds from the sea toward the land would also carry the oil to the coast of Amapá, putting two unique Brazilian ecosystems at risk: the mangroves of Amapá and the extensive coral reef system at the mouth of the Amazon.

Given the catastrophic consequences that Brazil will face if global warming spirals out of control, the country must assume a leadership role in combating climate change. So far, President Lula’s positions on fossil fuels and other sources of Brazilian emissions are squandering this opportunity.

This article is an updated translation of a text by the author that is available in Portuguese on Amazônia Real.

Header image: The Cape Orange National Park on the Amazonian coast of the state of Amapá. Block 59 – the site where Petrobras wants to drill – is located offshore 160 kilometers (99 miles) away. Image © Victor Moriyama / Greenpeace.