I learned in college that there is no, in social sciences, observation of reality completely exempt. As anthropologist Clifford Geertz pointed out – staring at Max Weber’s original thought – “man is an animal tied to webs of meanings that he himself has.” Made this caveat, I will try to analyze with the objectivity that the question of
I start with the nomenclature. To avoid the emotional-environmental burden associated with the word “Amazonas” ,. These, however, are not equivalent terms: the equatorial margin extends from the coast of Amapá to Rio Grande do Norte, covering four oil basins, one of them being the Foz do Amazonas Basin, closer to the Amapá Coast,
The arguments contrary to exploration are of two natures: environmental and image.
In the environmental aspect, there are two main interrelated risks. First, the area houses sensitive ecosystems, such as the newly discovered “large reef system in the Amazon”, as well as threatened species such as manner fish and turtles, whose habitat can be compromised by drilling and vessel traffic.
Second, strong sea currents and turbid waters make it difficult to contain leaks, making a possible devastating accident for fauna and fishing communities.
there is a less tangible but crucial damage: Brazil’s image in the international scene. Our potential in the low carbon economic cycle is based on differentials such as carbon sequestration via forest preservation and restoration, the expansion of biofuels and the development of green technologies, based mainly on the availability of “clean” energies such as solar and wind. But these advantages only materialize if there are markets, which, in turn, require international rules and certifications, and time for their maturation.
A, for example, depends on the acceptance of mechanisms such as jurisdictional partnerships and REDD+ (instrument that allows the carbon credits), which have suffered strong international opposition.
As they move food production to forest areas, while tropical agricultural emissions, although potentially lower than temperate, still lack recognized metrics.
Our success in these discussions depends directly on the prestige that our diplomacy has been building internationally, which – according to several articles in the foreign press – is seriously affected by the prospect of exploiting the mouth of Amazonas.
They state that current technology allows a safe operation, even in strong current areas, with advanced monitoring and strict protocols. They also argue that the environmental projects required by Ibama will ensure the protection of reefs and fauna.
For these issues, there is Brazilian environmental governance, which requires Ibama to manifest with exemption and without political interference, and it is up to the final decision.
While opponents argue that environmental risks and the loss of international credibility exceed gains, defenders emphasize the collection and jobs generated, especially in Amapá, one of the poorest states of the country.
It is also argued that while Brazil hesitates, other countries increase its production. Parenthesis: this reasoning of “doing because others do” is precisely the mechanism that led to global warming – a classic case of the “tragedy of the common goods” in the economy.
We then come to the most difficult question: the environmental issues is abstracted, is the venture worth economically?
The recent experience of the field of Buzios – suggests a long deadline for return. Between the drilling of the first well and the first oil extraction (“First Oil”), eight years have passed. It took another six years to reach the current production of 700 thousand barrels/day, and the installation of more platforms was still planned, the next in 2027, 17 years after the first drilling.
The necessary investment is difficult to estimate, but it is known that, after pre-salt discovery in 2007, contributions increased an average of $ 11 billion ($ 64.4 billion) for six years, before gradually returning to the previous level.
If the investment can be estimated, predicting the price of oil in 2040, when the area would reach relevant production, it is a much greater challenge.
For Petrobras, it is worth the “for those who only have a hammer, every problem is nail”. Thus, future price uncertainty has lower weight. As the time horizon is distant, it is assumed that the extraction cost is enough to be competitive to justify the investment.
For politicians, who advocate the project with tooth and nail – and other weapons as well – the return is independent of the field’s economic success. The certainty of investments and jobs generated will guarantee electoral dividends as early as 2026 and 2030, being less relevant what occurs after that date.
To states and municipalities, potential beneficiaries of oil revenues, compensatory mechanisms such as the “Green Royalties Fund” newly proposed by IPAM (Amazonian Environmental Research Institute) can be offered.
The current scenario, however, is of uncertainty about future oil demand. Until recently, OPEC (producers) and IEA (consumers) made similar projections, with a variation of less than 1%. Today, they differ strongly in the long run. The IEA (International Energy Agency) provides for the beginning of the drop in global consumption to before 2030; – What suggests that Brazilian production may face a waning market with falling prices, in which there are competitors with large reserves and more competitive costs, such as Saudi Arabia.
To the Brazilian citizen who is not an executive of Petrobras, nor the politician of the region, is the question: it is worth, demoralizing the country’s diplomacy and compromising its potential in the low carbon economy to invest billions of dollars in a project with such a degree of uncertainty?
To each of forming their judgment.
