Oil from the Amazon mouth could emit 4.7 billion tons of GHG, analysis shows
*Photos from the action in front of Petrobras here
This amount is equivalent to 5 years of deforestation. Furthermore, only 0.06% of Brazil’s oil resources are currently invested in the energy transition, which undermines the argument that it is necessary to explore the mouth of the Amazon to finance this process.
- Analysis indicates that burning the estimated 10 billion barrels at the mouth of the Amazon would result in the emission of 4.7 billion tons of CO2 equivalent;
- Currently, only 0.06% of the resources from oil activity are allocated to the energy transition, which contradicts the government’s justification for exploring this new frontier;
- To denounce such contradictions, civil society organizations carried out an action with banners and posters at the Petrobras headquarters in Rio de Janeiro.
May 30, 2025– Oil exploration at the Amazon Mouth, in the Equatorial Margin of Brazil, would increase CO emissions by 4.7 billion tons2 equivalent in the atmosphere, and oil money does not, and will not, finance the energy transition. This is what analyses carried out by Climainfo from reserve estimates for the basin, as well as for the FZA-M-59 block, for which Petrobras is seeking an exploratory drilling license, and the company’s and government’s investments in the energy transition.
Recently, thanks to strong political pressure and contrary to the technical opinion issued by IBAMA, Brazil’s environmental agency, Petrobras obtained approval of the new version of the Oiled Fauna Protection and Care Plan (PPAF, in portuguese). This is a worrying development in the licensing process for block 59.
Across the entire Amazonas mouth, the Brazilian Energy Research Company (EPE, in portuguese) estimates that there are more than 10 billion recoverable, and that the 5 basins that make up the Equatorial Margin contain more than 30 billion barrels.
From these volumes, Shigueo Watanabe Jr., researcher at Climainfo, estimates that burning the oil and gas from all the wells in the Amazonas Mouth would emit 4.7 billion tons of CO2 equivalent, and burning the oil and gas from the entire Equatorial Margin would release 13.5 billion tons of CO2 equivalent, more than the country emitted over the last 5 years including all deforestation in the Amazon during the period.
Although the proposed exploration is in an area of extremely high socio-environmental sensitivity, the licensing process for block FZA-M-59 has been moving forward since 2014 without conducting free, prior and informed consultation (FPIC, in portuguese) with indigenous peoples, quilombolas and artisanal fishermen in the Oiapoque region, directly in the area of influence of the project. In April, the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office (MPF, in portuguese) of Amapá recommended that IBAMA and Petrobras review the Environmental Impact Study (EIA, in portuguese) and conduct individual consultations, with attention to the specific culture of each traditional community, a process that should have been carried out at least 11 years ago, together with the first submission for the license application to IBAMA.
No money for the transition
One of the main arguments used by Petrobras and the Ministry of Mines and Energy for oil exploration in the Amazon Mouth is that the money from the region – if it is in fact available in commercially viable quantities – could finance the energy transition in Brazil. However, Watanabe Jr. points out that currently only 0.06% of the resources from oil activity are allocated to this purpose. This shows that there is no lack of oil money for the transition, but rather the correct allocation of it.
Furthermore, there is currently no national energy transition plan that details targets, deadlines, projects and sources of financing. Nor are there any budget lines dedicated exclusively to this transformation.
In its 2025-2029 Business Plan, Petrobras allocates almost 90% of the US$111 billion it plans to invest in this period to activities linked to fossil fuels. Only 10% of the total is earmarked for what the company calls “low-carbon energy,” which includes dubious carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) technology activities. The federal government, on the other hand, allocated only 0.03% of this year’s General Budget to the energy transition.
If we consider only the application of Brazil’s Social Fund, which is fed by oil and gas money and receives something in the order of R$$ 200 billion annually from the oil sector, in the period from 2018 to the beginning of 2025, the resource allocated to projects linked to the energy transition represents only 0.06% of the total.
On June 17, Brazil’s National Petroleum Agency (ANP) will hold an auction for 332 blocks exploratory, being 47 blocks at the mouth of the Amazon. Large oil companies such as Petrobras, Shell, BP and Total are among the participants in the competition.
This week, Brazil’s Federal Public Ministry (MPF) recommended to the National Petroleum Agency to immediately suspend the auction or exclude the blocks at the mouth of the Amazon from the offer. According to the recommendation, the decision to expand the oil exploration frontier in the region “represents a serious contradiction to global decarbonization efforts and the country’s climate commitments”.
Action by Brazilian civil society
To send a message to Petrobras, civil society organizations carried out an action with banners and posters at the company’s headquarters in Rio de Janeiro. This Friday (30), the location woke up with a banner with the message “Amazon or Oil: Which side are you on?”, which highlights the inconsistency of the Brazilian government in continuing to bet on oil exploration in the Amazon, while seeking to position itself as a global climate leader, just months away from COP30.
Posters with phrases such as “Heat waves in Rio 60°” and “Floods, flooding and landslides: a gift from Petrobrás” draw attention to the real effects of inaction. The action was promoted by organizations such as 350.org, Climainfo, Coiab, Nossas, Climate Observatory, Arayara, GTA and the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative.__
Statements
Alcebias Sapará, deputy coordinator of the Coordination of Indigenous Organizations of the Brazilian Amazon (Coiab):
“The discourse about using Amazonian oil resources to finance the energy transition is not only false, but also outrageously cynical, because it ignores the gravity of the crisis and the devastation caused by the exploitation of fossil fuels, which are, in fact, the main culprits of the current climate emergency. This crisis is not just environmental, but a crisis of values and leadership. The Lula government needs to choose whether it wants to protect the Amazon and its people, or whether it will continue to embrace oil. There is no more room for contradictions.”
Suely Araújo, Public Policy Coordinator at the Climate Observatory:
“The planning for the expansion of oil production in the country has been carried out without any analysis of the climate consequences. Environmental assessments of sedimentary areas have not been carried out to ensure more comprehensive focus, and greenhouse gas emissions that will be generated by the projects, including future burning of fuel, have not been considered. This is in the midst of a climate crisis. This situation in practice exposes climate denialism by government decision-makers and oil companies. It doesn’t matter that much of this oil will be exported. It will burn somewhere and contribute to worsening the crisis.”
Ilan Zugman, Director for Latin America and the Caribbean at 350.org:
“Just a few months away from COP30, it is unacceptable that the Brazilian government is trying to pose as a climate leader while defending oil exploration in the mouth of the Amazon – one of the most critical areas for the climate, indigenous communities and biodiversity on the planet. This choice, endorsed by President Lula, reveals a dangerous contradiction. Instead of pushing the country into new fossil fuel frontiers and spreading misinformation by saying that we need oil money to finance the energy transition, the government should focus on presenting a plan for the energy transition, with concrete goals for universal access to renewables. Instead, Minister Alexandre Silveira prefers to act as a lobbyist for Petrobras, pressuring IBAMA instead of planning Brazil’s energy future.”.
Clara Junger, Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty campaign coordinator in Brazil:
“The granting of the license for block 59 is a direct threat to life on the entire planet, but especially to indigenous peoples, quilombolas and traditional communities living in the Amazon, not only in Brazil, but throughout the Pan-Amazon. Political pressure on IBAMA to approve the license and to continue investing in the expansion of such a polluting industry in the region is advancing without even carrying out the necessary prior, free and informed consultation with traditional peoples and communities along the equatorial margin, especially in the Oiapoque region. We have already seen what happened in the pre-salt region, we know that the impact of the offshore is not limited to 100, 200 or 300 km from the coast, it directly impacts the entire coastline with severe contamination and violations of the traditional peoples’ ways of life. It is impossible for a country to position itself as a climate leader by wanting to increase the biggest problem we have to face today, which is the production and burning of fossil fuels. There is no point in talking about energy transition if we continue to expand the problem at this speed.”
Sila Mesquita, National President of the Amazon Working Group (GTA):
“Oil exploration in the mouth of the Amazon threatens one of the largest nurseries of marine life on the planet, putting at risk the coastal and riverside communities that depend on this ecosystem. In addition to increasing greenhouse gas emissions, it worsens the climate crisis and violates the rights of people who live off fishing and natural resources. There is no energy transition financed by oil — there is only more destruction and regression. Insisting on fossil fuels is condemning the Amazon, its people and the global climate. We need investments in life, not death.”
Carolina Marçal, project coordinator at Climainfo Institute.
“The time we have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is getting shorter and shorter, and right now Brazil should be discussing how to make a fair energy transition, not advancing plans to extract more oil in an environment of extremely high socio-environmental sensitivity, which should be a priority area for biodiversity conservation and for the global climate agenda, an oil-free zone. This is a huge mistake that could cost us dearly.”
Lucas Louback, Campaigns and Advocacy Manager at NOSSAS, a political mobilization organization
“There are already thousands of people saying ‘no’ to oil exploration at the mouth of the Amazon. The world is experiencing a climate emergency that demands bold and urgent choices. To insist on the fossil fuel model is to insist on a model that is pushing the world, especially vulnerable people, towards climate collapse. The discourse that oil will finance the energy transition doesn’t hold water: today, less than 1% of the sector’s resources are earmarked for this. The government needs to abandon contradictions and really invest in the present, based on climate justice and good living.”
Press contacts:
Mariana Abdalla, 350.org
+ 55 21 99823 5563
Nathalia Clark, Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty
+55 61 9137-1229
Lucas Louback, NOSSAS
+55 24 98156-4107