The permit approval for Petrobras to drill in the Amazon estuary, granted by Ibama on Monday, October 20^th, about 20 days before the COP30 in Belém is not accidental.

The decision timing, which authorizes oil exploration 160km from the shore and 500km from the world's largest estuary, has political reasons that extend beyond the pressure exerted by President Lula, some ministers, and Petrobras itself regarding the environmental summit throughout 2025.

Two recent episodes help to understand why the Brazilian government has chosen this moment to lead a project which strongly contrasts its discourse of climate leadership: when Minister Marina Silva defended fair transition in Brasília’s pre-COP a week ago, and the absence of a concrete plan that details how to transition from a dependency on fossil fuels properly.

The memo from Brasília

During the last preparation encounter for COP30, which took place between the 13th and 14th of October, Marina Silva presented the Brazilian proposal for an energetic transition based on social and climatic justice.

On the occasion, the minister remembered COP28, in Dubai, which proposed for the first time the phasing out of fossil fuels. Furthermore, she further defended the end of ineffective subsidies for this energy source.

“The decision represents a calling to eliminate ineffective subsidies to fossil fuels progressively. Today, these subsidies vary from 1,5 to 7 trillion dollars, depending on methodology”, affirmed the minister during the opening of the plenary session on phasing out, a term used to refer to the transition from fossil fuels to other, cleaner energy sources.

The reaction of the representatives of oil states, particularly from Saudi Arabia, was immediate and harsh.

The country, the second largest oil producer in the world and leader of the Arab States group, criticized the approach to the topic and declared that the Global Balance doesn’t just concern this issue but is a “menu” that shouldn’t single out or discriminate against any single technology.

Despite this divergence, sources affirmed that, generally, these countries showed willingness to negotiate, which was seen as a good sign for COP30.

However, by using strategic technology to map the main sensitive points, the Environmental Conference Board has noticed that debates about fossil fuels indeed stood out as some of the most delicate.

Behind the scenes, veteran diplomats reported in private conversations with EXAME that resistance raised some alarms among negotiators.

Without demonstrating that Brazil is also reliant on oil resources, the leadership of COP30 would be at risk of being isolated in the bloc of producer nations.

“The message was clear: there is no leading a global energy transition without recognizing that it will be long and that it involves oil”, revealed an observer who has accompanied the climate negotiations for over a decade.

“Allowing drilling on the Equatorial Margin is, also, a message that Brazil is not in a green utopia, but it is, rather, involved in energy geopolitics”, they completed.

Behind the scenes: “The timing is awful, but calculated”

In diplomatic and corporate behind-the-scenes circles, the interpretation is unanimous: the moment is terrible from an image perspective, but calculations were made with politics in mind.

“The decision was made now because, paradoxically, it would be even worse should it happen after the COP. It would be like admitting that Brazil hid its intentions during the conference. At least, this way, the government can say we were transparent”, pondered a diplomat who asked for anonymity for not being allowed to speak on this topic publicly.

Another veteran COP observer complements: “The government is playing a difficult game. If they don’t allow drilling, they lose support, face pressure from Petrobras, and become vulnerable to accusations of hindering development. If they allow it, they lose external credibility. They chose the latter since internal pressure was greater.”

A multinational executive in the energy sector, who also spoke anonymously, was more direct:

“Everyone knows Brazil is still going to drill for oil for decades to come. The question is: will we do this while we pretend we don’t, or will we admit to it and try to do it in the best way possible? The government chose the second option, but the moment couldn’t be worse.”

A repeating pattern: the Geneva fiasco

The clash in Brasília was not an isolated case. Two months earlier, in August, the negotiations for the International Plastic Treaty failed in Geneva due to disagreements between countries advocating for limits on global production and oil-producing nations resisting any restrictions.

The discourse of the second group prevailed, rendering any deal unviable and repeating an already evident pattern: whenever global debates advance to address fossil fuels, whether through plastics or phasing out, oil states organize a coordinated resistance.

Brazil, which could have played the role of mediator as the future host of COP30, was accused by climate activists of aligning itself with oil states, generating international criticism about the sincerity of Brazil's commitment to phasing out.

The void of strategic planning

The second pillar, which could explain this awful timing, lies in the fragility of the Brazilian narrative.

When questioned about how the country intends to, in practice, swap oil revenue and guarantee energy security while expanding on renewable sources, the government has yet to present a convincing plan with intermediary goals and well-defined funding sources.

Away from the media, executives in the energy sector highlight that this vacuum created a political breach.

The government's logic would be that since phasing out has no precise date or method, it is better to guarantee drilling while it is still necessary and profitable. The issue is that this stance collides head-on with the climate leadership discourse that the country wants to fulfill in Belém.

“A brutal contradiction”, says Carlos Nobre

For the climatologist Carlos Nobre, the decision represents a brutal contradiction in the Brazilian discourse on the eve of Belém’s summit.

“Brazil is telling the world that it is possible to reconcile development with environmental protection, but at the same time allows fuel exploration in one of the most sensitive regions of the planet, only a few kilometers from the biggest tropical rainforest in the world. This is not conciliation, this is incoherence”, affirmed Nobre in an interview.

The scientist warns that drilling in the Equatorial Margin, even if production takes from seven to ten years to begin, already compromises the narrative in Belém.

“COP30 should be the moment in which Brazil shows that it is possible to lead by example. But what example are we giving? That phasing out is empty talk while we drill holes at the bottom of the sea?”

Nobre recognizes that no transition would be immediate, but questions the need to open up the new oil frontier precisely now.

“We have reserves, we have ongoing operations. Why must we explore a new area of extremely high environmental risk, with powerful currents and ill-studied biodiversity, precisely when we should be showing that we can be different?”

Ibama and Petrobras defend that the current project is substantially different from the one denied in 2023.

In a report, Ibama stated that the license emission occurred only after a rigorous environmental licensing process, which began in 2014, initially under BP Energy and was taken over by Petrobras in December 2020.

Proceedings involved the elaboration by the Environmental Impact Study (EIA/RIMA), three public audiences, and 65 technical sector meetings of 20 municipalities from Pará and Amapá.

Inspections were also carried out on all emergency response structures and offshore drilling units, along with a Pre-Operational Assessment (APO) that mobilized more than 400 professionals from Petrobras and Ibama.

After the 2023 rejection, according to the environmental agency, an intense discussion began with Petrobras, which allowed for substantial improvements to the project, especially concerning the emergency response structure.

Among the advances are the construction and operation of a new large-scale Rehabilitation and Oil Removal Center (CRD) in Oiapoque (AP), which joins the existing one in Belém (PA). Additionally, there is the inclusion of three offshore vessels dedicated to assisting oiled wildlife and four nearshore vessels.

Ibama affirmed that the additional demands were fundamental for the environmental feasibility of the project, considering the exceptional ecological characteristics of the region. During the drilling activity, a new simulation exercise of emergency response will be conducted, focused on strategies for supporting fauna.

Petrobras, in turn, expects excellent results from this research, which aims to prove the existence of oil in the Brazilian portion of this new global energy frontier, according to Madga Chambriard, chair of the state-affiliated company.

The Ministry of the Environment reinforced in a report that licensing is Ibama’s legal responsibility, involving the assessment of the technical feasibility of projects.

The ministry made clear that it is not up to the licensing organ to analyze aspects of opportunity and convenience in exploring oil; this decision is the responsibility of the National Energy Policy Council (CNPE).

As Minister Marina Silva has reiterated over the past two years, whenever she is asked to comment on licensing processes that arouse the legitimate interest of civil society, indigenous peoples, quilombolas, traditional communities, the scientific community, investors, and different sectors of the government, it is legally incumbent upon Ibama to assess the technical feasibility of the project in question," the ministry said in a statement.

The MMA reaffirmed that any process involving high-risk areas, such as the Amazon River mouth, must comply with the most rigorous technical, scientific, and environmental criteria, ensuring respect for the environment, the peoples and communities of the region, and its socio-environmental riches.

Persistent Contradictions

Despite official assurances, Ibama technicians maintained their recommendation to deny the license until February. An opinion signed by 29 experts from the agency, seen by AFP, highlighted the risk of “massive loss of biodiversity in a highly sensitive marine ecosystem.”

In September, even though Petrobras was unable to reliably demonstrate its ability to contain leaks, the pre-operational environmental assessment was approved.

In 2011, Petrobras attempted to drill in a region close to the one for which it has now received a license. There was an incident with the rig caused by strong sea currents in that region—a warning about the challenging conditions in the area that remain today.

Backlash from environmental organizations was immediate. The Climate Observatory has announced that it will go to the courts together with six other civil society entities to question the technical and judicial aspects of the licensing.

“This approval sabotages COP and goes against the role of climate leader claimed by the president on the international stage”, declared the Climate Observatory. “This decision is disastrous from an environmental, climatic, and biodiversity perspective.”

Marcio Astrini, executive director of the organization, was more incisive in questioning the timing: “Why now? I think it's a kind of sabotage. COP is suffering from a series of opposing pressures within the government. The government is reticent about the agenda in general.”

The political pressure on the process was explicit. Lula even said publicly at the beginning of the year that Ibama was acting “as if it were against the government.”

Political interference in the licensing process, officially denied, became explicit in May when Rodrigo Agostinho, president of Ibama, overturned contrary technical opinions and authorized the spill response test—considered the last step before granting the license.

What is at stake in Belém

The contract for the drill rig to be used by Petrobras was due to expire this week, and the equipment was to be returned. With the license granted on Monday, the state-owned company will renew the contract and immediately begin drilling, which is expected to last five months.

The expectation is to know if there is oil in the well by March. Even if there is a discovery, production would take between seven and ten years to begin, according to Magda Chambriard, president of Petrobras.

But the political damage is immediate. COP30, which could represent Brazil's consecration as a climate power, arrives in Belém under the shadow of a decision that exposes the contradictions of the Brazilian environmental project — and there are many more challenges in other spheres and agendas.

Faced with these contradictions after the pre-COP in Brasília, Minister Marina Silva acknowledged:

“These great contradictions are not posed only in Brazil, but in the whole world. Indeed, we still have limits on renewable sources to fulfill all energy demand, above all in economic sectors, but this must be overcome.”

The question is whether it will be possible to overcome these contradictions while drilling in the Equatorial Margin. Furthermore, will it be possible to lead a global climate conference while carrying this ambiguity?

The following 20 days will determine whether Brazil can transform the discourse of “just transition” into something credible, or if the first COP in the Amazon will be remembered not for climate advances, but for the dissonance between rhetoric and reality.

The oil that may lie at the bottom of the equatorial sea has already begun to leak, not as oil, but as doubt about the seriousness of Brazilian climate leadership.